Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2023; 39(07): 549-558
DOI: 10.1055/a-2003-7890
Original Article

Predictors and Consequences of Intraoperative Anastomotic Failure in DIEP Flaps

Jonlin Chen 
1   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Kaamya Varagur 
2   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. St. Louis, Missouri
,
Helen Xun
1   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Sara Wallam
1   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Alexander Karius
1   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Rafael Ospino
1   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Jenny Ji 
2   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. St. Louis, Missouri
,
Sai Anusha Sanka 
2   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. St. Louis, Missouri
,
John Daines
2   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. St. Louis, Missouri
,
Rachel Skladman
2   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. St. Louis, Missouri
,
Oluseyi Aliu   *
1   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Justin M. Sacks   *
2   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. St. Louis, Missouri
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Successful intraoperative microvascular anastomoses are essential for deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap survival. This study identifies factors associated with anastomotic failure during DIEP flap reconstruction and analyzes the impact of these anastomotic failures on postoperative patient outcomes and surgical costs.

Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients undergoing DIEP flap reconstruction at two high-volume tertiary care centers from January 2017 to December 2020. Patient demographics, intraoperative management, anastomotic technique, and postoperative outcomes were collected. Data were analyzed using Student's t-tests, Chi-square analysis, and multivariate logistic regression.

Results Of the 270 patients included in our study (mean age 52, majority Caucasian [74.5%]), intraoperative anastomotic failure occurred in 26 (9.6%) patients. Increased number of circulating nurses increased risk of anastomotic failure (odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% confidence Interval [CI] 1.00–1.03, p <0.05). Presence of a junior resident also increased risk of anastomotic failure (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.01–6.34, p <0.05). Increased surgeon years in practice was associated with decreased failures (OR 0.12, CI 0.02–0.60, p <0.05). Intraoperative anastomotic failure increased the odds of postoperative hematoma (OR 8.85, CI 1.35–59.1, p <0.05) and was associated with longer operating room times (bilateral DIEP: 2.25 hours longer, p <0.05), longer hospital stays (2.2 days longer, p <0.05), and higher total operating room cost ($28,529.50 vs. $37,272.80, p <0.05).

Conclusion Intraoperative anastomotic failures during DIEP flap reconstruction are associated with longer, more expensive cases and increased rates of postoperative complications. Presence of increased numbers of circulators and junior residents was associated with increased risk of anastomotic failure. Future research is necessary to develop practice guidelines for optimizing patient and surgical factors for intraoperative anastomotic success.

Keywords

microvascular anastomosis - free flap - DIEP reconstruction - microsurgery

Presented At

Plastic Surgery the Meeting (ASPS), 2021.


* Designated co-corresponding authors.




Publication History

Received: 05 July 2022

Accepted: 30 November 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
23 December 2022

Article published online:
03 February 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Allen RJ, Treece P. Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 32 (01) 32-38
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Chang DW. Breast reconstruction with microvascular MS-TRAM and DIEP flaps. Arch Plast Surg 2012; 39 (01) 3-10
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Apostolides JG, Magarakis M, Rosson GD. Preserving the internal mammary artery: end-to-side microvascular arterial anastomosis for DIEP and SIEA flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (04) 225e-232e
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Fitzgerald O'Connor E, Rozen WM, Chowdhry M. et al. The microvascular anastomotic coupler for venous anastomoses in free flap breast reconstruction improves outcomes. Gland Surg 2016; 5 (02) 88-92
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Spector JA, Draper LB, Levine JP, Ahn CY. Routine use of microvascular coupling device for arterial anastomosis in breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2006; 56 (04) 365-368
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Teotia SS, Dickey RM, Liu Y, Jayaraman AP, Haddock NT. Intraoperative microvascular complications in autologous breast reconstruction: the effects of resident training on microsurgical outcomes. J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; 37 (04) 309-314
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Chang CS, Chu MW, Nelson JA. et al. Complications and cost analysis of intraoperative arterial complications in head and neck free flap reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2017; 33 (05) 318-327
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Swanson EW, Cheng HT, Susarla SM. et al. Intraoperative use of vasopressors is safe in head and neck free tissue transfer. J Reconstr Microsurg 2016; 32 (02) 87-93
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 O'Neill AC, Yang D, Roy M, Sebastiampillai S, Hofer SOP, Xu W. Development and Evaluation of a machine learning prediction model for flap failure in microvascular breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 2020; 27 (09) 3466-3475
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Serletti JM, Higgins JP, Moran S, Orlando GS. Factors affecting outcome in free-tissue transfer in the elderly. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 106 (01) 66-70
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Young JQ, Ranji SR, Wachter RM, Lee CM, Niehaus B, Auerbach AD. “July effect”: impact of the academic year-end changeover on patient outcomes: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155 (05) 309-315
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Bresler AY, Bavier R, Kalyoussef E, Baredes S, Park RCW. The “July effect”: outcomes in microvascular reconstruction during resident transitions. Laryngoscope 2020; 130 (04) 893-898
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Mueller MA, Pourtaheri N, Evans GRD. Microsurgery training resource variation among US integrated plastic surgery residency programs. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35 (03) 176-181
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Puhr R, Heinze G, Nold M, Lusa L, Geroldinger A. Firth's logistic regression with rare events: accurate effect estimates and predictions?. Stat Med 2017; 36 (14) 2302-2317
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Blough JT, Jordan SW, De Oliveira Jr GS, Vu MM, Kim JYS. Demystifying the “July Effect” in plastic surgery: a multi-institutional study. Aesthet Surg J 2018; 38 (02) 212-224
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Wu WW, Medin C, Bucknor A, Kamali P, Lee BT, Lin SJ. Evaluating the impact of resident participation and the July effect on outcomes in autologous breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2018; 81 (02) 156-162
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Orbay H, Busse BK, Stevenson TR, Wang HT, Sahar DE. deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap breast reconstruction without microsurgery fellowship training. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015; 3 (07) e455-e455
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Bhat D, Kollu T, Giutashvili T, Patel A, Ricci JA. Does surgeon training affect patient perception of surgeon skill in DIEP flap breast reconstruction?. J Reconstr Microsurg 2022; 38 (05) 361-370
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Ozdemir BA, Sinha S, Karthikesalingam A. et al. Mortality of emergency general surgical patients and associations with hospital structures and processes. Br J Anaesth 2016; 116 (01) 54-62
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 DeFazio MV, Economides JM, Anghel EL, Tefera EA, Evans KK. Lower extremity free tissue transfer in the setting of thrombophilia: analysis of perioperative anticoagulation protocols and predictors of flap failure. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35 (04) 270-286
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Tran NV, Buchel EW, Convery PA. Microvascular complications of DIEP flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 119 (05) 1397-1405
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Mauch JT, Rhemtulla IA, Katzel EB, Hernandez JA, Broach RB, Serletti JM. does size matter: evaluating the difference between right and left internal mammary veins in free flap breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35 (09) 677-681
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Grønkjær M, Eliasen M, Skov-Ettrup LS. et al. Preoperative smoking status and postoperative complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2014; 259 (01) 52-71
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Nahabedian MY, Momen B, Manson PN. Factors associated with anastomotic failure after microvascular reconstruction of the breast. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114 (01) 74-82
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Prantl L, Moellhoff N, Fritschen UV. et al. Impact of smoking status in free deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap breast reconstruction: a multicenter study. J Reconstr Microsurg 2020; 36 (09) 694-702
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Sørensen LT. Wound healing and infection in surgery. The clinical impact of smoking and smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Surg 2012; 147 (04) 373-383
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Kulkarni AR, Mehrara BJ, Pusic AL. et al. Venous thrombosis in handsewn versus coupled venous anastomoses in 857 consecutive breast free flaps. J Reconstr Microsurg 2016; 32 (03) 178-182
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Aizawa T, Kuwabara M, Kubo S. et al. Sutureless microvascular anastomosis using intravascular stenting and cyanoacrylate adhesive. J Reconstr Microsurg 2018; 34 (01) 8-12
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Qassemyar Q, Michel G. A new method of sutureless microvascular anastomoses using a thermosensitive poloxamer and cyanoacrylate: an experimental study. Microsurgery 2015; 35 (04) 315-319
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Saegusa N, Sarukawa S, Ohta K. et al. Sutureless microvascular anastomosis assisted by an expandable shape-memory alloy stent. PLoS One 2017; 12 (07) e0181520
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Pittelkow E, DeBrock W, Christopher L. et al. Advantages of the delayed-immediate microsurgical breast reconstruction: extending the choice. J Reconstr Microsurg 2022; 38 (07) 579-584
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Aravind P, Colakoglu S, Bhoopalam M. et al. Perforator characteristics and impact on postoperative outcomes in DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Reconstr Microsurg 2023; 39 (02) 138-147
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Elver AA, Matthews SA, Egan KG. et al. Characterizing outcomes of medial and lateral perforators in deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps. J Reconstr Microsurg 2023; 39 (01) 20-26
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 35 Park JE, Chang DW. Advances and innovations in microsurgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (05) 915e-924e
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Opsomer D, Vyncke T, Depypere B, Stillaert F, Blondeel P, Van Landuyt K. Lumbar flap versus the gold standard: comparison to the DIEP flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (04) 706e-714e
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar