The Use of the Ipsilateral Versus Contralateral Pedicle and Vertical Versus Horizontal Flap Inset Models in TRAM Flap Breast Reconstruction: The Aesthetic Outcome
The use of an ipsilateral or a contralateral rectus abdominis muscle as a pedicle and comparison of their advantages and disadvantages in TRAM flap breast reconstruction have been reported in the literature. In our clinical experience with 22 pedicled TRAM flap breast reconstructions, the use of either an ipsilateral or contralateral pedicle was found to be equivocal regarding the flap viability and the aesthetic outcome. Thus, it seems better to decide their use according to the needs of an individual patient.
In our series, the contralateral pedicled TRAM flap with a vertical flap inset was preferred in patients with a small opposite breast or in patients with infraclavicular tissue losses (four patients). The ipsilateral pedicled TRAM flap reconstruction with a horizontal flap inset was preferred in patients with a full and attractive opposite breast, unless they received adjuvant radiotherapy (six patients). In patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy the contralateral pedicle was used regardless of the inset model preferred (10 patients). Bilateral TRAM flap breast reconstruction was applied in one of our cases, which is not included in the three categories above mentioned. The aesthetic outcome was determined by analyzing a patient satisfaction questionnaire. Overall satisfaction was achieved in 17 patients. Four patients were dissatisfied.
We think that choosing the correct flap inset model is one of the most important factors in achieving a satisfactory aesthetic outcome. Choosing the correct pedicle regarding the type of the flap inset model is equally important to facilitate technical ease during flap transposition and to improve flap survival.
Key wordsTRAM flap Ipsilateral pedicle Contralateral pedicle
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Bostwick J: Plastic and reconstructive breast surgery. Quality Medical Publishing: St. Louis, MO, p. 760–784, 1990Google Scholar
- 4.Clugston PA, Gingrass MK, Azurin D, Fisher J: Ipsilateral pedicled TRAM Raps: the safer alternative? Plast Reconstr Surg 105:2000Google Scholar
- 5.Evans GR, David CL, Loyer EM, Storm E, Waldron C, Ortega R, Ainslie N, Wang B, Janjan N: The long-term effects of internal mammary chain irradiation and its role in the vascular supply of the pedicled transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 35:4, 1995Google Scholar
- 7.Hartrampf CR Jr., Anton MA, Bried JT: Breast reconstruction with the transverse abdominal island (TRAM) flap. In: Georgiade SG, Riefkohl R, Levin LS (eds.) Plastic, maxillofacial and reconstructive surgery, 3rd ed. William & Wilkins: Baltimore, 1997Google Scholar
- 9.Missana MC, Levy C, Barreau-Pouhaer L: Radiotherapy and immediate breast reconstruction with myocutaneous flap in breast cancer of reserved prognosis. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 45:2, 2000Google Scholar
- 13.Williams JK, Carlson GW, Bostwick J, Bried JT, Mackay G: The effects of radiation treatment after TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 100:5, 1997Google Scholar