Ultrasonographic assessment of rectus abdominis muscle adaptation after deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap surgery: Single institution retrospective study.
Journal
Medicine
ISSN: 1536-5964
Titre abrégé: Medicine (Baltimore)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 2985248R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Sep 2023
01 Sep 2023
Historique:
medline:
4
9
2023
pubmed:
1
9
2023
entrez:
1
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The impact of deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap on abdominal wall integrity has been the topic of an ongoing debate with previous studies having reported conflicting results using various imaging modalities. Ultrasonography is a noninvasive, cost-effective, and readily available method for evaluating the changes to the rectus muscle after DIEP flap surgery. In the present study, we aimed to compare rectus abdominis muscle thickness between the operated and non-operated sides using ultrasound imaging. The muscle thickness was measured at the cross point of the midclavicular line and the level of the umbilicus and anterior superior iliac spine using real-time B-mode ultrasonography. The muscle anteroposterior diameters of the pedicle-dissected side and the control side were compared using paired t test. In total 31 patients with a mean follow-up of 70.18 weeks were included. The mean diameters at the level of the umbilicus of the operated and non-operated sides were 8.16 ± 1.83 and 8.14 ± 1.43 mm, respectively (P = .94). The mean thicknesses at the anterior superior iliac spine level were 7.74 ± 1.85 on the flap harvested side and 8.04 ± 1.84 mm on the control side (P = .35). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. Ultrasonography can be a reliable, inexpensive, and easily usable modality for evaluating donor site complication following DIEP flap. DIEP flap seems to have minimal impact on the abdominal donor site, and it may be safe and versatile to reconstruct the breast after mastectomy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37657015
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034721
pii: 00005792-202309010-00020
pmc: PMC10476729
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e34721Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
Br J Plast Surg. 2000 Oct;53(7):578-83
pubmed: 11000074
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012 Nov;65(11):1474-80
pubmed: 22841854
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59(6):585-93
pubmed: 16716951
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 May;141(5):1261-1270
pubmed: 29697626
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2017 Oct;8(5):702-712
pubmed: 28703496
J Strength Cond Res. 2002 Feb;16(1):103-8
pubmed: 11834114
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010 Oct;126(4):1142-1153
pubmed: 20885239
Br J Plast Surg. 1997 Jul;50(5):322-30
pubmed: 9245865
J Reconstr Microsurg. 2010 Jan;26(1):21-8
pubmed: 19742426
Ann Plast Surg. 1994 Jan;32(1):32-8
pubmed: 8141534
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Apr;123(4):1148-1155
pubmed: 19337083
Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1979;13(3):423-27
pubmed: 396670
J Appl Physiol (1985). 1998 Jul;85(1):115-22
pubmed: 9655763
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018 Sep;71(9):1310-1316
pubmed: 30017669
Clin Rehabil. 2012 Oct;26(10):934-44
pubmed: 22324054
Br J Plast Surg. 2004 Jul;57(5):398-405
pubmed: 15191819
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006 Jan;96(1):24-31
pubmed: 16235068
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1985 Sep;76(3):455-60
pubmed: 3898169
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Jan;86(3):203-8
pubmed: 11990727
Ann Plast Surg. 2005 May;54(5):483-6
pubmed: 15838208