Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

DIEP Flap Donor Site Versus Elective Abdominoplasty Short-term Complication Rates: A Meta-analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Although over the past decade the DIEP flap has emerged as one of the preferred choices for autologous breast reconstruction and the donor-site closure has much in common with the standard abdominoplasty technique, reports on comparisons of the complication rates between DIEP and elective abdominoplasty patients are not currently available. The purpose of this study was to compare DIEP donor-site and elective abdominoplasty short-term complications rates, in support of surgical choices.

Methods

Searches of MEDLINE and CENTRAL for English language articles on DIEP and elective abdominoplasty (EA) published from January 1999 through December 2009 identified 33 studies that met the inclusion criteria and included 3,937 patients. A random-effects model was used to calculate the average complication rate in the literature.

Results

The rate of seroma/hematoma in EA (16.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.2–20.9%) was approximately four times the rate in DIEP flap patients (3.7%, 95% CI = 1.5–8.8%) was found from analyzing the data under a random-effects model. No substantial differences in the rates of infection, abdominal/umbilical necrosis, or wound dehiscence/delayed healing between the two series of patients were detected.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis reveals that DIEP donor-site complication rates were comparable to those in elective abdominoplasty, and, the rate of seroma in DIEP is an even lower than that of one of the most performed procedures in plastic surgery. We argue that patients presenting for a DIEP flap should be informed about this interesting comparison.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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 

  2. 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 

  3. Keller A (2001) The deep inferior epigastric perforator free flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 46:474–479

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 

  5. Munhoz AM, Sturtz G, Montag E et al (2005) Clinical outcome of abdominal wall after DIEP flap harvesting and immediate application of abdominoplasty techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:1881–1893

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bajaj AK, Chevray PM, Chang DW (2006) Comparison of donor-site complications and functional outcomes in free muscle-sparing TRAM flap and free DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:737–746

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bonde CT, Christensen DE, Elberg JJ (2006) Ten years’ experience of free flaps for breast reconstruction in a Danish microsurgical centre: an audit. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 40:8–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Garvey PB, Buchel EW, Pockaj BA et al (2006) DIEP and pedicled TRAM flaps: a comparison of outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:1711–1719

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Scheer AS, Novak CB, Neligan PC, Lipa JE (2006) Complications associated with breast reconstruction using a perforator flap compared with a free TRAM flap. Ann Plast Surg 56:355–358

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Yan XQ, Yang HY, Zhao YM, You L, Xu J (2007) Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction: experience with 43 flaps. Chin Med J 120:380–384

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Drazan L, Vesely J, Hyza P et al (2008) Bilateral breast reconstruction with DIEP flaps: 4 years’ experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 61:1309–1315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hofer SO, Damen TH, Mureau MA, Rakhorst HA, Roche NA (2007) A critical review of perioperative complications in 175 free deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstructions. Ann Plast Surg 59:137–142

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Vyas RM, Dickinson BP, Fastekjian JH, Watson JP, Dalio AL, Crisera CA (2008) Risk factors for abdominal donor-site morbidity in free flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 121:1519–1526

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Parrett BM, Caterson SA, Tobias AM, Lee BT (2008) DIEP flaps in women with abdominal scars: are complication rates affected? Plast Reconstr Surg 121:1527–1531

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Takeishi M, Fujimoto M, Ishida K, Makino Y (2008) Muscle sparing-2 transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap for breast reconstruction: a comparison with deep inferior epigastric perforator flap. Microsurgery 28:650–655

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Xu H, Dong J, Wang T (2009) Bipedicle deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for unilateral breast reconstruction: seven years’ experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:1797–1807

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Chaouat M, Levan P, Lalanne B, Buisson T, Nicolau P, Mimoun M (2008) Abdominal dermolipectomies: early postoperative complications and long-term unfavorable results. Plast Reconstr Surg 106:1614–1618

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ramirez OM (2000) Abdominoplasty and abdominal wall rehabilitation: a comprehensive approach. Plast Reconstr Surg 10:425–435

    Google Scholar 

  22. van Uchelen JH, Werker PM, Kon M (2001) Complications of abdominoplasty in 86 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:1869–1873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kryger ZB, Fine NA, Mustoe TA (2004) The outcome of abdominoplasty performed under conscious sedation: six-year experience in 153 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1807–1817

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim J, Stevenson TR (2006) Abdominoplasty, liposuction of the flanks, and obesity: analyzing risk factors for seroma formation. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:773–779

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Spiegelman JI, Levine RH (2006) Abdominoplasty: a comparison of outpatient and inpatient procedures shows that it is a safe and effective procedure for outpatients in an office-based surgery clinic. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:517–522

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Stevens WG, Cohen R, Vath SD, Stoker DA, Hirsch EM (2006) Is it safe to combine abdominoplasty with elective breast surgery? A review of 151 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:207–212

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Neaman KC, Hansen JE (2007) Analysis of complications from abdominoplasty: a review of 206 cases at a university hospital. Ann Plast Surg 58:292–298

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Khan UD (2008) Risk of seroma with simultaneous liposuction and abdominoplasty and the role of progressive tension sutures. Aesthetic Plast Surg 32:93–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Smith MM, Hovsepian RV, Markarian MK et al (2008) Continuous-infusion local anesthetic pain pump use and seroma formation with abdominal procedures: is there a correlation? Plast Reconstr Surg 122:1425–1430

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Greco JA 3rd, Castaldo ET, Nanney LB et al (2008) The effect of weight loss surgery and body mass index on wound complications after abdominal contouring operations. Ann Plast Surg 61:235–242

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Heller JB, Teng E, Knoll BI, Persing J (2008) Outcome analysis of combined lipoabdominoplasty versus conventional abdominoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 121:1821–1829

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Brink RR, Beck JB, Anderson CM, Lewis AC (2009) Abdominoplasty with direct resection of deep fat. Plast Reconstr Surg 123:1597–1603

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Momeni A, Heier M, Bannasch H, Stark GB (2009) Complications in abdominoplasty: a risk factor analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 62:1250–1254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539–1558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Najera RM, Asheld W, Sayeed SM, Glickman LT (2011) Comparison of seroma formation following abdominoplasty with or without liposuction. Plast Reconstr Surg 127:417–422

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Stevens WG, Spring MA, Stoker DA, Cohen R, Vath SD, Hirsch EM (2007) Ten years of outpatient abdominoplasties: safe and effective. Aesthet Surg J 27:269–275

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Sterne JA, Egger M, Smith GD (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ 323:101–105

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Buck D, Mustoe T (2010) An evidence-based approach to abdominoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 126:2189–2195

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Roberto Nerla, M.D. (University Hospital “A. Gemelli”) for the precious assistance in the statistical analysis of the data.

Disclosure

The authors have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, University Hospital A. Gemelli, Largo A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy

    Marzia Salgarello, Damiano Tambasco & Eugenio Farallo

Authors
  1. Marzia Salgarello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Damiano Tambasco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eugenio Farallo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Damiano Tambasco.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Salgarello, M., Tambasco, D. & Farallo, E. DIEP Flap Donor Site Versus Elective Abdominoplasty Short-term Complication Rates: A Meta-analysis. Aesth Plast Surg 36, 363–369 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-011-9804-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-011-9804-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation