Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-2737-5205
Stacked vs. Single Free Flaps in Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A National Analysis of Clinical and Financial Outcomes
Authors
Funding Information P.B. received proctoring fees from Atricure Inc.
Abstract
Background
Autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) is a reliable option for reconstruction after mastectomy. In cases where single donor sites do not offer adequate tissue, the use of “stacked” flaps, or multiple free flaps, can be brought together to provide optimal breast volume. This large-scale study aims to compare clinical outcomes, resource utilization, and readmission rates between single and stacked flaps.
Methods
The National Readmission Database was used to retrospectively identify adult female patients who underwent ABR with free flaps between 2016 and 2020. In this study, free flaps were restricted to nonpedicled types, with latissimus dorsi (LD) and pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps (TRAM) excluded. Patients were categorized based on flap type (single vs. stacked) using relevant International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) procedure codes. Patient demographics, hospital factors, complication rates, and readmission data were analyzed. The primary outcome was the difference in postoperative flap complication rates between single and stacked flaps.
Results
A total of 52,180 adult females were included for analysis. Of these, 51,140 (n = 98.5%) had single flaps and 783 patients (n = 1.5%) had stacked flaps. Use of stacked flaps was not statistically associated with higher odds of any flap complication (adjusted odds ratios: 1.16, p = 0.46) compared to single flaps. Stacked flaps were associated with longer length of stay and higher hospitalization costs, but there was no significant difference in 30-day readmission compared to the single flap cohort.
Conclusion
Our study found similar rates of overall flap complications between the cohorts. Thus, in cases where more tissue is needed or desired, the use of stacked flaps appears to be a safe and feasible option to ABR.
Publication History
Received: 18 February 2025
Accepted: 03 November 2025
Accepted Manuscript online:
05 November 2025
Article published online:
25 November 2025
© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
-
References
- 1 Patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life after autologous tissue breast reconstruction - Zhong - 2012 - Cancer - Wiley Online Library. Accessed October 3, 2025 at: https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cncr.26417
- 2 Salibian AA, Nolan IT, Bekisz JM. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of microvascular stacked and conjoined-flap breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; 37 (08) 631-642
- 3 Eltahir Y, Werners LLCH, Dreise MM, Zeijlmans van Emmichoven IA, Werker PMN, de Bock GH. Which breast is the best? Successful autologous or alloplastic breast reconstruction: patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135 (01) 43-50
- 4 Sinik LM, Collins MS. Challenges in autologous breast reconstruction: a review of recommendations. J Clin Med 2024; 13 (04) 971
- 5 Jeevan R, Browne JP, Gulliver-Clarke C. et al. Surgical determinants of patient-reported outcomes following postmastectomy reconstruction in women with breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (05) 1036e-1045e
- 6 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 (01) 117-126
- 7 Boyd CJ, Sorenson TJ, Hemal K, Karp NS. Maximizing volume in autologous breast reconstruction: stacked/conjoined free flaps. Gland Surg 2023; 12 (05) 687-695
- 8 Haddock NT, Cho MJ, Teotia SS. Comparative analysis of single versus stacked free flap breast reconstruction: a single-center experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 144 (03) 369e-377e
- 9 Masoomi H, Hanson SE, Clemens MW, Mericli AF. Autologous breast reconstruction trends in the United States: using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Ann Plast Surg 2021; 87 (03) 242-247
- 10 Salibian AA, Bekisz JM, Frey JD. et al. Comparing outcomes between stacked/conjoined and non-stacked/conjoined abdominal microvascular unilateral breast reconstruction. Microsurgery 2021; 41 (03) 240-249
- 11 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
- 12 Koolen PGL, Lee BT, Lin SJ, Erhard HA, Greenspun DT. Bipedicle-conjoined perforator flaps in breast reconstruction. J Surg Res 2015; 197 (02) 256-264
- 13 Patel NG, Rozen WM, Chow WTH. et al. Stacked and bipedicled abdominal free flaps for breast reconstruction: considerations for shaping. Gland Surg 2016; 5 (02) 115-121
- 14 Hernandez Rosa J, Sherif RD, Torina PJ, Harmaty MA. Use of both antegrade and retrograde internal mammary vessels in the bipedicled deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for unilateral breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2017; 70 (01) 47-53
- 15 Malata CM, Rabey NG. Decision making in double-pedicled DIEP and SIEA abdominal free flap breast reconstructions: an algorithmic approach and comprehensive classification. Front Surg 2015; 2: 49
- 16 Li S, Mu L, Li Y. et al. Breast reconstruction with the free bipedicled inferior TRAM flap by anastomosis to the proximal and distal ends of the internal mammary vessels. J Reconstr Microsurg 2002; 18 (03) 161-168
- 17 Kim SY, Lee KT, Mun GH. Computed tomographic angiography-based planning of bipedicled DIEP Flaps with intraflap crossover anastomosis: an anatomical and clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (03) 409e-418e
- 18 Haddock N, Nagarkar P, Teotia SS. Versatility of the profunda artery perforator flap: creative uses in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (03) 606e-612e
- 19 Khattab NR. Complications of free bipedicled DIEP flaps in breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Plast Surg 2022; 45 (01) 39-53
- 20 Overview NRD. Accessed October 24, 2024 at: https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nrdoverview.jsp
- 21 International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. 11th ed.. World Health Organization; 2019
- 22 Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 1998; 36 (01) 8-27
- 23 Tibshirani R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J R Stat Soc B 1996; 58 (01) 267-288
- 24 Martinez CA, Fairchild B, Secchi-Del Rio R, Boutros SG. Bilateral outpatient breast reconstruction with stacked DIEP and vertical PAP flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021; 9 (10) e3878
- 25 Weitgasser L, Schwaiger K, Medved F, Hamler F, Wechselberger G, Schoeller T. Bilateral simultaneous breast reconstruction with DIEP- and TMG flaps: head to head comparison, risk and complication analysis. J Clin Med 2020; 9 (07) 2031
- 26 Sheckter CC, Rochlin D, Kiwanuka H, Curtin C, Momeni A. The impact of hospital volume on patient safety indicators following post-mastectomy breast reconstruction in the US. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2019; 178 (01) 177-183
- 27 Tuggle CT, Patel A, Broer N, Persing JA, Sosa JA, Au AF. Increased hospital volume is associated with improved outcomes following abdominal-based breast reconstruction. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2014; 48 (06) 382-388
- 28 Ochoa O, Pisano S, Ledoux P. et al. Case volume-dependent changes in operative morbidity following free flap breast reconstruction: a 15-year single-center analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021; 148 (03) 365e-374e
- 29 Gösseringer N, Mani M, Cali-Cassi L, Papadopoulou A, Rodriguez-Lorenzo A. Benefits of two or more senior microsurgeons operating simultaneously in microsurgical breast reconstruction: Experience in a Swedish medical center. Microsurgery 2017; 37 (05) 416-420
