Umbilical Ablation During Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Harvest Decreases Donor Site Complications.
Journal
Annals of plastic surgery
ISSN: 1536-3708
Titre abrégé: Ann Plast Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7805336
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2020
09 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
31
1
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
31
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Donor site complications are a significant source of morbidity for patients undergoing abdominal-based free flap breast reconstruction, but there is a paucity of data regarding minimizing these postoperative complications. We hypothesize that selective ablation of the umbilicus at the time of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) harvest decreases the incidence of umbilical and abdominal wall complications in high-risk patients. A retrospective review was performed of all patients (n = 117) who underwent DIEP harvest with concomitant umbilical ablation from 2010 to 2015. This cohort was paired with 117 patients who underwent DIEP harvest without umbilical ablation. Preoperative risk factors, intraoperative factors, and postoperative complications were compared. The umbilical ablation group had significantly higher body mass index (30.9 vs 27.4 kg/m, P < 0.001), presence of umbilical scar (20.9% vs 5.3%, P < 0.001), umbilical hernia (82.9% vs 8.5% P < 0.001), ventral hernia (23.9% vs 1.7%, P < 0.001), and rectus diastasis (10.3% vs 2.6%, P = 0.016). There were no significant differences of smoking, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, prior abdominal surgery, or midline abdominal scar. The umbilical ablation group had a significantly lower rate of postoperative abdominal wound dehiscence and skin loss (11.1% vs 22.2%, P = 0.023) and overall donor site complications (24.8% vs 39.3%, P = 0.017). There was no significant difference in incidence of cellulitis, seroma, or abscess. Mean follow-up time was 1.8 years. Selective umbilical ablation in high-risk patients at the time of abdominal flap harvest can result in significantly fewer donor site wound complications, even in the setting of increased risk factors for poor wound healing. This is likely due to avoidance of umbilical incisions and decreased upper abdominal skin undermining. We conclude that umbilical ablation is a viable option to minimize donor site complications, especially in high-risk patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Donor site complications are a significant source of morbidity for patients undergoing abdominal-based free flap breast reconstruction, but there is a paucity of data regarding minimizing these postoperative complications. We hypothesize that selective ablation of the umbilicus at the time of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) harvest decreases the incidence of umbilical and abdominal wall complications in high-risk patients.
METHODS
A retrospective review was performed of all patients (n = 117) who underwent DIEP harvest with concomitant umbilical ablation from 2010 to 2015. This cohort was paired with 117 patients who underwent DIEP harvest without umbilical ablation. Preoperative risk factors, intraoperative factors, and postoperative complications were compared.
RESULTS
The umbilical ablation group had significantly higher body mass index (30.9 vs 27.4 kg/m, P < 0.001), presence of umbilical scar (20.9% vs 5.3%, P < 0.001), umbilical hernia (82.9% vs 8.5% P < 0.001), ventral hernia (23.9% vs 1.7%, P < 0.001), and rectus diastasis (10.3% vs 2.6%, P = 0.016). There were no significant differences of smoking, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, prior abdominal surgery, or midline abdominal scar. The umbilical ablation group had a significantly lower rate of postoperative abdominal wound dehiscence and skin loss (11.1% vs 22.2%, P = 0.023) and overall donor site complications (24.8% vs 39.3%, P = 0.017). There was no significant difference in incidence of cellulitis, seroma, or abscess. Mean follow-up time was 1.8 years.
CONCLUSIONS
Selective umbilical ablation in high-risk patients at the time of abdominal flap harvest can result in significantly fewer donor site wound complications, even in the setting of increased risk factors for poor wound healing. This is likely due to avoidance of umbilical incisions and decreased upper abdominal skin undermining. We conclude that umbilical ablation is a viable option to minimize donor site complications, especially in high-risk patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32000254
doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002191
pii: 00000637-202009000-00012
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
260-265Références
Plastic surgery statistics report 2016. Arlington Heights, IL: American Society of Plastic Surgeons; 2017.
Hunsinger V, Hivelin M, Derder M, et al. Long-term follow-up of quality of life following DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:1361–1371.
Macadam SA, Zhong T, Weichman K, et al. Quality of life and patient-reported outcomes in breast cancer survivors: a multicenter comparison of four abdominally based autologous reconstruction methods. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:758–771.
Pirro O, Mestak O, Vindigni V, et al. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes after implant versus autologous tissue breast reconstruction using the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5:e1217.
Ochoa O, Chrysopoulo M, Nastala C, et al. Abdominal wall stability and flap complications after deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction: does body mass index make a difference? Analysis of 418 patients and 639 flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:21e–33e.
Futter CM, Weiler-Mithoff E, Hagen S, et al. Do pre-operative abdominal exercises prevent post-operative donor site complications for women undergoing DIEP flap breast reconstruction? A two-centre, prospective randomised controlled trial. Br J Plast Surg. 2003;56:674–683.
Bajaj AK, Chevray PM, Chang DW. Comparison of donor-site complications and functional outcomes in free muscle-sparing TRAM flap and free DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117:737–746; discussion 747–750.
Futter CM, Webster MH, Hagen S, et al. A retrospective comparison of abdominal muscle strength following breast reconstruction with a free TRAM or DIEP flap. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53:578–583.
Chang EI, Chang EI, Soto-Miranda MA, et al. Comprehensive analysis of donor-site morbidity in abdominally based free flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:1383–1391.
Patel SA, Sandberg LJ, Ranganath B, et al. Impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on abdominal wall hernias and bulges after muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;73:62–67.
Munhoz AM, Sturtz G, Montag E, et al. Clinical outcome of abdominal wall after DIEP flap harvesting and immediate application of abdominoplasty techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116:1881–1893.
Selber JC, Fosnot J, Nelson J, et al. A prospective study comparing the functional impact of SIEA, DIEP, and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps on the abdominal wall: part II. Bilateral reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:1438–1453.
Blondeel N, Vanderstraeten GG, Monstrey SJ, et al. The donor site morbidity of free DIEP flaps and free TRAM flaps for breast reconstruction. Br J Plast Surg. 1997;50:322–330.
Suominen S, Asko-Seljavaara S, Kinnunen J, et al. Abdominal wall competence after free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap harvest: a prospective study. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;39:229–234.
Kind GM, Rademaker AW, Mustoe TA. Abdominal-wall recovery following TRAM flap: a functional outcome study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;99:417–428.
Wu LC, Bajaj A, Chang DW, et al. Comparison of donor-site morbidity of SIEA, DIEP, and muscle-sparing TRAM flaps for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:702–709.
Selber JC, Samra F, Bristol M, et al. A head-to-head comparison between the muscle-sparing free TRAM and the SIEA flaps: is the rate of flap loss worth the gain in abdominal wall function?Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:348–355.
Mirzabeigi MN, Wilson AJ, Fischer JP, et al. Predicting and managing donor-site wound complications in abdominally based free flap breast reconstruction: improved outcomes with early reoperative closure. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:14–23.
Laporta R, Longo B, Sorotos M, et al. Tips and tricks for DIEP flap breast reconstruction in patients with previous abdominal scar. Microsurgery. 2017;37:282–292.
Cho M-J, Teotia SS, Haddock NT. Predictors, classification, and management of umbilical complications in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:11–18.
Chang DW, Wang B, Robb GL, et al. Effect of obesity on flap and donor-site complications in free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:1640–1648.
Roostaeian J, Yoon AP, Sanchez IS, et al. The effect of prior abdominal surgery on abdominally based free flaps in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:247e–255e.
Hsieh F, Kumiponjera D, Malata CM. An algorithmic approach to abdominal flap breast reconstruction in patients with pre-existing scars—results from a single surgeon's experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62:1650–1660.
Lee KT, Mun GH. Effects of obesity on postoperative complications after breast reconstruction using free muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous, deep inferior epigastric perforator, and superficial inferior epigastric artery flap: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76:576–584.
Padubidri AN, Yetman R, Browne E, et al. Complications of postmastectomy breast reconstructions in smokers, ex-smokers, and nonsmokers. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107:342–349; discussion 341–350.
Losken A, Carlson GW, Jones GE, et al. Importance of right subcostal incisions in patients undergoing TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2002;49:115–119.
Nahabedian MY, Manson PN. Contour abnormalities of the abdomen after transverse rectus abdominis muscle flap breast reconstruction: a multifactorial analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109:81–87; discussion 88–90.
Mehrara BJ, Santoro TD, Arcilla E, et al. Complications after microvascular breast reconstruction: experience with 1195 flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118:1100–1109; discussion 1101–1110.
Parrett BM, Caterson SA, Tobias AM, et al. DIEP flaps in women with abdominal scars: are complication rates affected?Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121:1527–1531.
Shubinets V, Fox JP, Sarik JR, et al. Surgically treated hernia following abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction: prevalence, outcomes, and expenditures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:749–757.
Mennie JC, Mohanna PN, O'Donoghue JM, et al. Donor-site hernia repair in abdominal flap breast reconstruction: a population-based cohort study of 7929 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:1–9.
Erdmann-Sager J, Wilkins EG, Pusic AL, et al. Complications and patient-reported outcomes after abdominally based breast reconstruction: results of the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:271–281.
Nedomansky J, Nickl S, Radtke C, et al. Venous superdrainage in DIEP flap breast reconstruction: the impact of superficial inferior epigastric vein dissection on abdominal seroma formation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:206e–212e.
Ueno CM, Chen E, Cohen A, et al. Impact of obesity in microsurgical breast reconstruction: flap and donor site complications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:23.
Lim TC, Tan WT. Managing the umbilicus during abdominoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;98:1113.
Santanelli F, Mazzocchi M, Renzi L, et al. Reconstruction of a natural-looking umbilicus. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2002;36:183–185.
Ehrlich RM, Lesavoy MA. Umbilicus preservation with total abdominal wall reconstruction in prune-belly syndrome. Urology. 1993;41:231–232.
Ehrlich RM, Lesavoy MA, Fine RN. Total abdominal wall reconstruction in the prune belly syndrome. J Urol. 1986;136:282–285.
Ricci JA, Kamali P, Becherer BE, et al. Umbilical necrosis rates after abdominal-based microsurgical breast reconstruction. J Surg Res. 2017;215:257–263.
Southwell-Keely JP, Berry MG. Umbilical reconstruction: a review of techniques. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64:803–808.
Joseph WJ, Sinno S, Brownstone ND, et al. Creating the perfect umbilicus: a systematic review of recent literature. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2016;40:372–379.
Hazani R, Israeli R, Feingold RS. Reconstructing a natural looking umbilicus: a new technique. Ann Plast Surg. 2009;63:358–360.
Visconti G, Tomaselli F, Monda A, et al. Deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap donor-site closure with cannula-assisted, limited undermining, and progressive high-tension sutures versus standard abdominoplasty: complications, sensitivity, and cosmetic outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:1–12.
Enajat M, Smit JM, Rozen WM, et al. Aesthetic refinements and reoperative procedures following 370 consecutive DIEP and SIEA flap breast reconstructions: important considerations for patient consent. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2010;34:306–312.
Elkwood AI, Therattil PJ, Abdollahi H, et al. Decreasing umbilical necrosis in transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap breast reconstruction with surgical delay. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7:e2124.