Perforator Characteristics and Impact on Postoperative Outcomes in DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Journal
Journal of reconstructive microsurgery
ISSN: 1098-8947
Titre abrégé: J Reconstr Microsurg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8502670
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2023
Feb 2023
Historique:
pubmed:
18
6
2022
medline:
25
1
2023
entrez:
17
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
High-quality evidence on perforator selection in deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap harvesting is lacking, making preoperative planning and choice of perforators "surgeon-specific." This lack of consensus is a subject of continuous debate among microsurgeons. We aimed to systematically review perforator characteristics and their impact on DIEP flap breast reconstruction outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis across six databases: ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, Medline, Ovid Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science for all studies on DIEP flap breast reconstruction focused on perforator characteristics-caliber, number, and location. The primary goal was to analyze the impact of perforator characteristics on partial and/or total flap failure and fat necrosis. Data was analyzed using RevMan V5.3. Initial search gave us 2,768 articles of which 17 were included in our review. Pooled analysis did not show any statistically significant correlations between partial and/or total flap failure and perforator number, or perforator location. Sensitivity analysis accounting for heterogeneity across studies showed that, the risk for fat necrosis was significantly higher if single perforators (relative risk [RR] = 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5-2.6, Our findings suggest that a single dominant perforator and medial row perforators may be associated with higher risk of fat necrosis after DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Adopting a standardized perforator selection algorithm may facilitate operative decision making, shorten the learning curve for novice surgeons, and optimize postoperative outcomes by minimizing the burden of major complications. This in turn would help improve patient satisfaction and quality of life.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
High-quality evidence on perforator selection in deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap harvesting is lacking, making preoperative planning and choice of perforators "surgeon-specific." This lack of consensus is a subject of continuous debate among microsurgeons. We aimed to systematically review perforator characteristics and their impact on DIEP flap breast reconstruction outcomes.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis across six databases: ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, Medline, Ovid Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science for all studies on DIEP flap breast reconstruction focused on perforator characteristics-caliber, number, and location. The primary goal was to analyze the impact of perforator characteristics on partial and/or total flap failure and fat necrosis. Data was analyzed using RevMan V5.3.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Initial search gave us 2,768 articles of which 17 were included in our review. Pooled analysis did not show any statistically significant correlations between partial and/or total flap failure and perforator number, or perforator location. Sensitivity analysis accounting for heterogeneity across studies showed that, the risk for fat necrosis was significantly higher if single perforators (relative risk [RR] = 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5-2.6,
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that a single dominant perforator and medial row perforators may be associated with higher risk of fat necrosis after DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Adopting a standardized perforator selection algorithm may facilitate operative decision making, shorten the learning curve for novice surgeons, and optimize postoperative outcomes by minimizing the burden of major complications. This in turn would help improve patient satisfaction and quality of life.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35714621
doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1750124
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
138-147Informations de copyright
Thieme. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None declared.