Unilateral Autologous Breast Reconstruction with Bi-pedicled, Conjoined Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flaps
02 February 2018
27 June 2018
15 August 2018 (online)
Background The abdomen remains the most popular and reliable donor site for autologous breast reconstruction. Some patients, however, lack sufficient tissue to recreate an aesthetic breast mound using a single-pedicle, deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap, particularly when matching a contralateral native breast. The amount of abdominal skin and/or soft tissue reliably supplied by one vascular pedicle is frequently insufficient to adequately restore the breast skin envelope and “footprint.” This study summarizes our experience with using bipedicled DIEP flaps to improve the aesthetic results of unilateral breast reconstruction in such patients.
Methods Consecutive patients undergoing unilateral breast reconstruction with bi-pedicled, conjoined DIEP flaps over a 4-year period were retrospectively reviewed. Primary and secondary flap microvascular anastomoses were performed to the antegrade internal mammary (IM) vessels and to either the retrograde IM vessels or a primary DIEP pedicle side branch, respectively. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were recorded.
Results Sixty-three patients underwent immediate (n = 29) or delayed (n = 34) reconstruction, with age and body mass index of 54.1 ± 8.4 years and 26.6 ± 4.7, respectively. Mean follow-up was 14.1 months. Twenty-eight (44.4%) patients received prereconstruction radiation therapy. All patients had preoperative abdominal imaging, including 57 (90.5%) using magnetic resonance angiography. There were no flap losses with three operative interventions for flap salvage.
Conclusion Unilateral breast reconstruction with bipedicled, conjoined DIEP flaps is safe and reliable. These procedures can be performed with a complication profile similar to single-pedicle DIEP flaps. The additional skin and soft tissue available with bi-pedicled flaps allows for greater flexibility in matching the shape and projection of a woman's contralateral breast, and in some cases is necessary to achieve an aesthetically acceptable reconstruction. With growing expectations among breast reconstruction patients, conjoined bi-pedicled flaps represent a tool for meeting their reconstructive needs and exceeding the status quo for aesthetic outcomes.
Dr. Greenspun is a member of the NOVADAQ Technologies Inc. speaker bureau. The remaining authors have no relevant financial relationships to disclose. This work was not supported by any sources of external funding. This work has not previously been published. All authors agree on the content of this article and have contributed to its production.
- 1 Kroll SS, Baldwin B. A comparison of outcomes using three different methods of breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1992; 90 (03) 455-462
- 2 Patel NG, Ramakrishnan V. Microsurgical tissue transfer in breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 2017; 44 (02) 345-359
- 3 Macadam SA, Bovill ES, Buchel EW, Lennox PA. Evidence-based medicine: autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (01) 204e-229e
- 4 Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ. , et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. Breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (01) 15-23
- 5 Damen TH, Timman R, Kunst EH. , et al. High satisfaction rates in women after DIEP flap breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63 (01) 93-100
- 6 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 (05) 322-330
- 7 Yueh JH, Slavin SA, Adesiyun T. , et al. Patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparative evaluation of DIEP, TRAM, latissimus flap, and implant techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (06) 1585-1595
- 8 Pusic AL, Matros E, Fine N. , et al. Patient-reported outcomes 1 year after immediate breast reconstruction: results of the mastectomy reconstruction outcomes consortium study. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35 (22) 2499-2506
- 9 American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. 2016. Available at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/plastic-surgery-statistics.html . Accessed January 18, 2018
- 10 Blondeel PN, Hijjawi J, Depypere H, Roche N, Van Landuyt K. Shaping the breast in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery: an easy three-step principle. Part II--breast reconstruction after total mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123 (03) 794-805
- 11 Blondeel PN, Hijjawi J, Depypere H, Roche N, Van Landuyt K. Shaping the breast in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery: an easy three-step principle. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123 (02) 455-462
- 12 Dayan JH, Allen Jr RJ. Lower extremity free flaps for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (5S Advances in Breast Reconstruction): 77S-86S
- 13 Hunter C, Moody L, Luan A, Nazerali R, Lee GK. Superior gluteal artery perforator flap: the beauty of the buttock. Ann Plast Surg 2016; 76 (Suppl. 03) S191-S195
- 14 Peters KT, Blondeel PN, Lobo F, van Landuyt K. Early experience with the free lumbar artery perforator flap for breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2015; 68 (08) 1112-1119
- 15 Bissell MB, Greenspun DT, Levine J. , et al. The lumbar artery perforator flap: 3-dimensional anatomical study and clinical applications. Ann Plast Surg 2016; 77 (04) 469-476
- 16 Dec W. Optimizing aesthetic outcomes in delayed breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017; 5 (08) e1447
- 17 Kling RE, Mehrara BJ, Pusic AL. , et al. Trends in autologous fat grafting to the breast: a national survey of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (01) 35-46
- 18 Beahm EK, Walton RL. The efficacy of bilateral lower abdominal free flaps for unilateral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120 (01) 41-54
- 19 Koolen PG, Lee BT, Lin SJ, Erhard HA, Greenspun DT. Bipedicle-conjoined perforator flaps in breast reconstruction. J Surg Res 2015; 197 (02) 256-264
- 20 O'Neill AC, Ngan NC, Platt J, Mahomed A, Zhong T, Hofer SO. A decision-making algorithm for recipient vein selection in bipedicle deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap autologous breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014; 67 (08) 1089-1093
- 21 Chan RK, Przylecki W, Guo L, Caterson SA. Case report. The use of both antegrade and retrograde internal mammary vessels in a folded, stacked deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap. Eplasty 2010; 10: e32
- 22 DellaCroce FJ, Sullivan SK, Trahan C. Stacked deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction: a review of 110 flaps in 55 cases over 3 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (03) 1093-1099
- 23 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 (07) 495-501
- 24 Allen RJ, Treece P. Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 32 (01) 32-38
- 25 Lohman RF, Ozturk CN, Djohan R, Tang HR, Chen H, Bechtel KL. Predicting skin flap viability using a new intraoperative tissue oximetry sensor: a feasibility study in pigs. J Reconstr Microsurg 2014; 30 (06) 405-412
- 26 Lin SJ, Nguyen MD, Chen C. , et al. Tissue oximetry monitoring in microsurgical breast reconstruction decreases flap loss and improves rate of flap salvage. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (03) 1080-1085
- 27 Stalder MW, Lam J, Allen RJ, Sadeghi A. Using the retrograde internal mammary system for stacked perforator flap breast reconstruction: 71 breast reconstructions in 53 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 137 (02) 265e-277e
- 28 Mayo JL, Allen RJ, Sadeghi A. Four-flap breast reconstruction: bilateral stacked DIEP and PAP flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015; 3 (05) e383
- 29 Salgarello M, Visconti G, Barone-Adesi L, Cina A. The retrograde limb of internal mammary vessels as reliable recipient vessels in DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a clinical and radiological study. Ann Plast Surg 2015; 74 (04) 447-453