Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2020; 80(06): 628-638
DOI: 10.1055/a-1116-2102
GebFra Science
Original Article/Originalarbeit

The DIEP Flap as Well-established Method of Choice for Autologous Breast Reconstruction with a Low Complication Rate – Retrospective Single-centre 10-Year Experience

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Beatrix Munder
1   Klinik für Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Sana Kliniken Düsseldorf GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Christoph Andree
1   Klinik für Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Sana Kliniken Düsseldorf GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Christian Witzel
1   Klinik für Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Sana Kliniken Düsseldorf GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Sonia Fertsch
1   Klinik für Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Sana Kliniken Düsseldorf GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Peter Stambera
1   Klinik für Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Sana Kliniken Düsseldorf GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Tino Schulz
1   Klinik für Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Sana Kliniken Düsseldorf GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Olaf Fleischer
1   Klinik für Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Sana Kliniken Düsseldorf GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Mazen Hagouan
1   Klinik für Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Sana Kliniken Düsseldorf GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Lukas Grüter
1   Klinik für Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Sana Kliniken Düsseldorf GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Birgit Aufmesser
1   Klinik für Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Sana Kliniken Düsseldorf GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Katinka Staemmler
1   Klinik für Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Sana Kliniken Düsseldorf GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Julia Kornetka
1   Klinik für Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Sana Kliniken Düsseldorf GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Mohammed Aldeeri
1   Klinik für Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Sana Kliniken Düsseldorf GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Katrin Seidenstücker
1   Klinik für Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Sana Kliniken Düsseldorf GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Alina Abu-Ghazaleh
1   Klinik für Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Sana Kliniken Düsseldorf GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Andreas Wolter
1   Klinik für Plastische und Ästhetische Chirurgie, Sana Kliniken Düsseldorf GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany
2   Universität Witten-Herdecke, Fakultät für Gesundheit, Witten, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women in Germany. Despite breast-conserving therapy (BCT) being carried out in almost 70% of cases, a high number of women still require complete mastectomy. Prophylactic mastectomy is also indicated for women with a BRCA 1/2 gene mutation. In addition to implant-based heterologous breast reconstruction, autologous breast reconstruction using a DIEP flap has been found to be beneficial, particularly for patients who had prior radiotherapy. This study aims to show that DIEP flap reconstruction surgery is the method of choice for autologous breast reconstruction with a low rate of complications.

Patients and Methods Autologous breast reconstruction using a DIEP flap was performed in 1124 patients between July 2004 and December 2014. Retrospective study criteria included potential risk factors such as age, BMI, smoking, chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, and comorbidities as well as outcome parameters such as postoperative complications. Outcomes were evaluated with a mean follow-up of 24 months.

Results A total of 1124 patients underwent 1274 free DIEP flap breast reconstructions, of which 150 were bilateral reconstructions. The primary indication was previous mastectomy in 785 cases, followed by prior implant-based reconstruction in 265 cases. The total flap loss rate was 0.6%. Postoperative surgical revision for abdominal wall hernia was required in 0.2% of cases. The group with a higher BMI and the group of smokers had significantly higher complication rates. Elderly patients (> 65 years), patients who had undergone chemo-/radiotherapy and patients with diabetes did not have higher complication rates.

Conclusion DIEP flap surgery is an excellent option for autologous breast reconstruction, with a low rate of donor site morbidity and low complication rates. DIEP flap surgery carried out in a specialised interdisciplinary breast centre in a standardised clinical setting after prior careful patient selection to take account of risk factors such as high BMI and smoking is a reliable method with a low complication rate and satisfactory long-term reconstruction results.

Key words

breast - breast cancer - breast reconstruction - DIEP flap - autologous breast reconstruction - BRCA


Publication History

Received: 27 October 2018

Accepted: 10 February 2020

Article published online:
16 April 2020

© .

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

 

  • References/Literatur

  • 1 Robert Koch-Institut (RKI), Zentrum für Krebsregisterdaten. http://
    PubMed
  • 2 Anderson BO, Masetti R, Silverstein MJ. Oncoplastic approaches to partial mastectomy: an overview of volume-displacement techniques. Lancet Oncol 2005; 6: 145-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Franceschini G, Terribile D, Magno S. et al. Conservative treatment of the central breast cancer with nipple-areolar resection: an alternative oncoplastic technique. G Chir 2008; 29: 23-27
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Liu C, Zhuang Y, Momeni A. et al. Quality of life and patient satisfaction after microsurgical abdominal flap versus staged expander/implant breast reconstruction: a critical study of unilateral immediate breast reconstruction using patient-reported outcomes instrument BREAST-Q. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014; 146: 117-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 King MC, Marks JH, Mandell JB. New York Breast Cancer Study Group. Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 . Science 2003; 302: 643-646
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Struewing JP, Hartge P, Wacholder S. et al. The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1401-1408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chen S, Parmigiani G. Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 1329-1333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hartrampf CR, Scheflan M, Black PW. Breast reconstruction with a transverse abdominal island flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1982; 69: 216-225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Grotting JC, Urist MM, Maddox WA. et al. Conventional TRAM flap versus free microsurgical TRAM flap for immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1989; 83: 828-841 discussion 842–844
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Koshima I, Soeda S. Inferior epigastric artery skin flaps without rectus abdominis muscle. Br J Plast Surg 1989; 42: 645-648
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Allen RJ, Treece P. Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 32: 32-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Blondeel PN, Boeckx WD. Refinements in free flap breast reconstruction: the free bilateral deep inferior epigastric perforator flap anastomosed to the internal mammary artery. Br J Plast Surg 1994; 47: 495-501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Thamm OC, Andree C. Immediate versus Delayed Breast Reconstruction – Evolving Concepts and Evidence. Clin Plast Surg 2018; 45: 119-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Otte M, Nestle-Krämling C, Fertsch S. et al. Conservative mastectomies and Immediate-DELayed AutoLogous (IDEAL) breast reconstruction: the DIEP flap. Gland Surg 2016; 5: 24-31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Granzow JW, Levine JL, Chiu ES. et al. Breast reconstruction with the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap: history and an update on current technique. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2006; 59: 571-579
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Blondeel PN. One hundred free DIEP flap breast reconstructions: a personal experience. Br J Plast Surg 1999; 52: 104-111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Gill PS, Hunt JP, Guerra AB. et al. A 10-year retrospective review of 758 DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113: 1153-1160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Keller A. The deep inferior epigastric perforator free flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2001; 46: 474-479 discussion 479–480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Damen TH, Morritt AN, Zhong T. et al. Improving outcomes in microsurgical breast reconstruction: Lessons learnt from 406 consecutive DIEP/TRAM flaps performed by a single surgeon. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013; 66: 1032-1038
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lindsey JT. Integrating the DIEP and muscle-sparing (MS-2) free TRAM techniques optimizes surgical outcomes: presentation of an algorithm for microsurgical breast reconstruction based on perforator anatomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 119: 18-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Langer S, Munder B, Seidenstuecker K. et al. Development of a surgical algorithm and optimized management of complications – based on a review of 706 abdominal free flaps for breast reconstruction. Med Sci Monit 2010; 16: Cr518-Cr522
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Fosnot J, Fischer JP, Smartt JM. et al. Does previous chest wall irradiation increase vascular complications in free autologous breast reconstruction?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127: 496-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Baumann DP, Crosby MA, Selber JC. et al. Optimal timing of delayed free lower abdominal flap breast reconstruction after postmastectomy radiation therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127: 1100-1106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ersek RA. Rate and incidence of capsular contracture: a comparison of smooth and textured silicone double-lumen breast prostheses. Plast Reconstr Surg 1991; 87: 879-884
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ersek RA, Salisbury AV. Textured surface, nonsilicone gel breast implants: four yearsʼ clinical outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 100: 1729-1739
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Gabriel SE, Woods JE, OʼFallon WM. et al. Complications leading to surgery after breast implantation. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 677-682
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Spear SL, Murphy DK, Slicton A. et al. Inamed Silicone Breast Implant U.S. Study Group. Inamed silicone breast implant core study results at 6 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120: 8S-16S discussion 17S–18S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Cunningham B. The Mentor Core Study on Silicone MemoryGel Breast Implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120: 19S-29S discussion 30S–32S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kronowitz SJ. Current status of implant-based breast reconstruction in patients receiving postmastectomy radiation therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130: 513e-523e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Basu CB, Jeffers L. The role of acellular dermal matrices in capsular contracture: a review of the evidence. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130: 118S-124S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Slavin SA, Lin SJ. The use of acellular dermal matrices in revisional breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130: 70S-85S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Hammond DC, Schmitt WP, OʼConnor EA. Treatment of breast animation deformity in implant-based reconstruction with pocket change to the subcutaneous position. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135: 1540-1544
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Spear SL, Schwartz J, Dayan JH. et al. Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2009; 33: 44-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 de Benito J, Sanchez K. Secondary breast augmentation: managing each case. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2010; 34: 691-700
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Wolter A, Andree C. Korrekturmöglichkeiten bei Brustimplantatfehlposition. Plastische Chirurgie 2019; 1: 26-33
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Seidenstuecker K, Munder B, Mahajan AL. et al. Morbidity of microsurgical breast reconstruction in patients with comorbid conditions. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127: 1086-1092
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Serletti JM, Higgins JP, Moran S. et al. Factors affecting outcome in free-tissue transfer in the elderly. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 106: 66-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Malata CM, Cooter RD, Batchelor AG. et al. Microvascular free-tissue transfers in elderly patients: the Leeds experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996; 98: 1234-1241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Momeni A, Ahdoot MA, Kim RY. et al. Should we continue to consider obesity a relative contraindication for autologous microsurgical breast reconstruction?. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2012; 65: 420-425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Rao S, Stolle EC, Sher S. et al. A multiple logistic regression analysis of complications following microsurgical breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 2014; 3: 226-231
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Timmermanns FW, Westland PB, Hummelink S. et al. A retrospective investigation of abdominal visceral fat, body mass index (BMI), and active smoking as risk factors for donor site wound healing complications after free DIEP flap breast reconstructions. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018; 71: 827-832
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Klasson S, Nyman J, Svensson H. et al. Smoking increases donor site complications in breast reconstruction with DIEP flap. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2016; 50: 331-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Lawrence WT, Murphy RC, Robson MC. et al. The detrimental effect of cigarette smoking on flap survival: an experimental study in the rat. Br J Plast Surg 1984; 37: 216-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 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 350–351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar