Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A safe approach to sparing the rectus muscle in abdominal-based microvascular breast reconstruction—TRAM, MS-TRAM, DIEP or SIEA?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Journal of Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There has been an international drive towards the use of abdominal-based perforator (deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) or superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA)) flaps for breast reconstruction as they provide the ideal tissue whilst minimizing donor site morbidity, post-operative pain and recovery times. Ultimately, what is desired is a safe and reliable reconstruction. We retrospectively reviewed 245 consecutive abdominal-based free flaps performed by three surgeons at a single institution between January 2002 and March 2008. Primary breast reconstructions were planned as DIEPs, but a safe, flexible approach to flap selection was adopted with the most appropriate flap performed depending on the perforator anatomy at the time of surgery. Chest wall resurfacing procedures for extensive recurrent disease, inflammatory breast carcinoma or following radionecrosis were planned as transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flaps. The incidence of flap complications was compared including total and partial flap loss, returns to operating room, seroma, abdominal hernia/bulge, fat necrosis and delayed wound healing. Patient age, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, co-morbidity and pre- and post-operative radiotherapy were recorded. Two hundred patients, mean age 48 years (range, 26–74 years), underwent a total of 245 abdominal-based microvascular breast reconstructions. Twelve salvage TRAM flaps were performed for chest wall resurfacing. Of the remaining 233 flaps, 151 (65%) were immediate and 82 (35%) were delayed reconstructions. Flaps included 171 DIEPs, 38 muscle-sparing (MS)-TRAMs, 2 TRAMs and 22 SIEA flaps. Of the 233 reconstructions, 39 flaps (16.7%) in 31 patients received radiotherapy. Mean follow-up was 2.6 years. There were three (1.3%) complete flap losses and three (1.3%) partial flap losses. Rates of fat necrosis were 3.0% and abdominal hernia/bulge 1.7%. We present an algorithm to aid decision-making in autologous breast reconstruction that reflects our safe flexible approach. We have achieved excellent success rates in autologous breast reconstruction and conclude that in order to minimize complications, a safe flexible approach towards muscle harvest must be maintained in our drive to use perforator flaps.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Holmstrom H (1979) The free abdominoplasty flap and its use in breast reconstruction. An experimental study and clinical case report. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 13:423–427

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Futter CM, Webster MH, Hagen S et al (2000) A retrospective comparison of abdominal muscle strength following breast reconstruction with a free TRAM or DIEP flap. Br J Plast Surg 53:578–583

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kroll SS, Sharma S, Koutz C et al (2001) Postoperative morphine requirements of free TRAM and DIEP flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:338–341

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Koshima I, Soeda S (1989) Inferior epigastric artery skin flap without rectus abdominis muscle. Br J Plast Surg 42:645–648

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nahabedian MY, Momen B, Galdino G et al (2002) Breast reconstruction with the free TRAM or DIEP flap: patient selection, choice of flap, and outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg 110:466–475, discussion 476–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Allen RJ, Treece P (1994) Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 32:32–38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Blondeel PN (1997) The donor site morbidity of free DIEP flaps and free TRAM flaps for breast reconstruction. Br J Plast Surg 50(5):322–330

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Blondeel PN (1999) One hundred free DIEP flap breast reconstructions: a personal experience. Br J Plast Surg 52:104–111

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Grotting JC (1991) The free abdominoplasty flap for immediate breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 27:351–354

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ulusal BG, Cheng MH, Wei FC et al (2006) Breast reconstruction using the entire transverse abdominal adipocutaneous flap based on unilateral superficial or deep inferior epigastric vessels. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:1395–1403, discussion 1404–1396

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Taylor GI, Daniel RK (1975) The anatomy of several free flap donor sites. Plast Reconstr Surg 56:243–253

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Allen RJ (2003) DIEP versus TRAM for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:2478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Busic V, Das-Gupta R, Mesic H et al (2006) The deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction, the learning curve explored. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 59:580–584

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Acosta R, Smit JM, Audolfsson T, Darcy CM, Enajat M, Kildal M, Liss AG (2011) A clinical review of 9 years of free perforator flap breast reconstructions: an analysis of 675 flaps and the influence of new techniques on clinical practice. J Reconstr Microsurg 27(2):91–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bajaj AK, Chevray PM, Chang DW (2008) Comparison of donor-site complications and functional outcomes in free muscle-sparing TRAM flap and free DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 122(3):702–709

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lindsey JT (2007) 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 119:18–27

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Nahabedian MY, Tsangaris T, Momen B (2005) Breast reconstruction with the DIEP flap or the muscle-sparing (MS-2) free TRAM flap: is there a difference? Plast Reconstr Surg 115:436–444, discussion 445–436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nelson JA, Guo Y, Sonnad SS, Low DW, Kovach SJ 3rd, Wu LC, Serletti JM (2010) A comparison between DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps in breast reconstruction: a single surgeon's recent experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(5):1428–1435

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Granzow JW, Levine JL, Chiu ES et al (2007) Breast reconstruction with perforator flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 120:1–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Selber JC, Samra F, Bristol M, Sonnad SS, Vega S, Wu L, Serletti JM (2008) A head-to-head comparison between the muscle-sparing free TRAM and the SIEA flaps: is the rate of flap loss worth the gain in abdominal wall function? Plast Reconstr Surg 122(2):348–355

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rozen WM, Ashton MW, Grinsell D et al (2008) Establishing the case for CT angiography in the preoperative imaging of abdominal wall perforators. Microsurgery 28:306–313

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rozen WM, Anavekar NS, Ashton MW et al (2008) Does the preoperative imaging of perforators with CT angiography improve operative outcomes in breast reconstruction? Microsurgery 28:516–523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Uppal RS, Casaer B, Van Landuyt K, Blondeel P (2009) The efficacy of preoperative mapping of perforators in reducing operative times and complications in perforator flap breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 62(7):859–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rozen WM, Ashton MW, Stella DL et al (2008) The accuracy of computed tomographic angiography for mapping the perforators of the DIEA: a cadaveric study. Plast Reconstr Surg 122:363–369

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Phillips TJ, Stella DL, Rozen WM et al (2008) Abdominal wall CT angiography: a detailed account of a newly established preoperative imaging technique. Radiology 249:32–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rozen WM, Stella DL, Bowden J et al (2009) Advances in the pre-operative planning of deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flaps: magnetic resonance angiography. Microsurgery 29:119–123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Masia J, Kosutic D, Cervelli D et al (2010) In search of the ideal method in perforator mapping: noncontrast magnetic resonanceimaging. J Reconstr Microsurg 26(1):29–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rozen WM, Stella DL, Phillips TJ, Ashton MW, Corlett RJ, Taylor GI (2008) Magnetic resonance angiography in the preoperative planning of DIEA perforator flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 122(6):222e–223e

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hamdi M, Weiler-Mithoff EM, Webster MH (1999) Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap in breast reconstruction: experience with the first 50 flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 103:86–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Gill PS, Hunt JP, Guerra AB et al (2004) A 10-year retrospective review of 758 DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1153–1160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tran NV, Buchel EW, Convery PA (2007) Microvascular complications of DIEP flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 119:1397–1405, discussion 1406–1398

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Isabel Jones and Helen McEvoy for their assistance with this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Fulham Road, London, SW3 6JJ, UK

    Jonathan Adamthwaite, Andrew D. H. Wilson, Stuart James, Adam Searle & Paul Harris

  2. Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, The Royal Devon & Exeter NHS FT, Barrack Road, EX2 5DW, Devon, UK

    Andrew D. H. Wilson

Authors
  1. Jonathan Adamthwaite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew D. H. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stuart James
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Adam Searle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew D. H. Wilson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Adamthwaite, J., Wilson, A.D.H., James, S. et al. A safe approach to sparing the rectus muscle in abdominal-based microvascular breast reconstruction—TRAM, MS-TRAM, DIEP or SIEA?. Eur J Plast Surg 35, 653–661 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-011-0667-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-011-0667-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation