Planning deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps for breast reconstruction: a comparison between multidetector computed tomography and magnetic resonance angiography.
Cina A,Barone-Adesi L,Rinaldi P,Cipriani A,Salgarello M,Masetti R,Bonomo L
OBJECTIVES:Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps have become the state of the art in breast reconstruction. We compared the diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomography (CTA) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in DIEP flap planning. METHODS:Twenty-three women (mean age 48.0 years, range 26-72 years) underwent preoperative blinded evaluation using 64-slice CTA and 1.5-T MRA. Perforator identification, measurement of their calibre, intramuscular course (IMC), assessment of direct venous connections (DVC) with main superficial veins, superficial venous communications (SVC) between the right and left hemi-abdomen and deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEA) branching type were performed. Surgery was carried out by the same team. Intraoperative findings were the standard of reference. RESULTS:Accuracy in identifying dominant perforators was 91.3 % for both techniques and mean error in calibre measurement 1.18 ± 0.35 mm for CTA and 1.63 ± 0.39 mm for MRA. Accuracy in assessing perforator IMCs was 97.1 % for CTA and 88.4 % for MRA, DVC 94.4 % for both techniques, SVC 91.3 % as well, and DIEA branching type 100 % for CTA and 91.3 % for MRA. Image acquisition and interpretation time was 21 ± 3 min for CTA (35 ± 5 min for MRA). CONCLUSIONS:In a strategy to optimise DIEP flap planning avoiding radiation exposure, MRA can be proposed alternatively to CTA. KEY POINTS:• Identification of deep inferior epigastric perforators (DIEP) is important before breast reconstruction. • Both CT and MR angiography are accurate in identifying DIEA perforator branches. • CTA and MRA are equivalent in demonstrating perforator-venous connections. • MRA can be proposed as an alternative to CTA in DIEP planning.
Autologous Breast Reconstruction with SIEA Flaps: An Alternative in Selected Cases.
Grünherz Lisanne,Wolter Andreas,Andree Christoph,Grüter Lukas,Staemmler Katinka,Munder Beatrix,Schulz Tino,Stambera Peter,Hagouan Mazen,Fleischer Olaf,Seidenstücker Katrin,Abu-Gazaleh Alina,Fertsch Sonia,Aldeeri Mohammed,Kour Firas,Kornetka Julia,Aufmesser Birgit,Thamm Oliver Christian
Aesthetic plastic surgery
BACKGROUND:The deep inferior epigastric perforator flap has been shown to be a reliable option for autologous breast reconstruction. A further refinement in the transfer of lower abdominal tissue is the superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) flap that does not require any incision of the rectus abdominis fascia or muscle and is superior regarding donor-site morbidity. OBJECTIVES:We conducted a retrospective study to assess reliability and outcomes of autologous breast reconstruction using SIEA flaps. METHODS:We performed autologous breast reconstruction in 1708 patients at our department between 2009 and 2018. Of those, 28 patients that underwent breast reconstruction using a SIEA flap were included for a retrospective chart review. RESULTS:Given an overall flap loss rate of 1.8%, we observed total flap necrosis following a SIEA flap in four patients (13%). All cases were secondary to arterial thrombosis. We further recognized a significant correlation between flap failure and a history of spontaneous deep vein thrombosis (p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant relationship between flap failure and obesity (BMI > 30 kg/mp = 0.9) or flap failure and a history of abdominal operations (p = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS:The SIEA flap provides a reasonable option for autologous breast reconstruction with the great advantage of minimal donor-site morbidity. Nevertheless, its use should be preserved to selected cases with favorable anatomy. We therefore recommend proper patient selection based on preoperative computed tomography angiography, intraoperative clinical evaluation and history of hypercoagulable state. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV:This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.