Coroneos Christopher J, Heller Adrian M, Voineskos Sophocles H, Avram Ronen
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada From the Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 May;135(5):802e-807e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001150.
The authors analyzed arterial complications in patients undergoing breast reconstruction with superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) flaps compared with deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flaps. The variability, caliber, and angiosome of the SIEA are cited as limitations. Experts currently limit SIEA reconstruction to cases with favorable arterial anatomy on preoperative imaging.
In this retrospective cohort study, consecutive flaps for breast reconstruction from the initial 7 years of a single microsurgeon's practice (2007 to 2013) were reviewed. Preoperative imaging was not used. Consistent intraoperative criteria for SIEA flap selection were used. All complications were abstracted independently in duplicate using a standardized form and a priori criteria.
One hundred sixty-nine free flaps (SIEA, n = 44; DIEP, n = 125) were performed on 112 patients for unilateral or bilateral breast reconstruction. Significantly more SIEA flaps required reexploration versus DIEP flaps (20 percent versus 7 percent; p = 0.03). Arterial insufficiency was significantly higher among SIEA flaps (14 percent versus 1 percent; p = 0.001). There was no difference in venous insufficiency (p = 0.92). Significantly more SIEA flaps had necrosis requiring intervention (p = 0.03). Ultimately, significantly more SIEA flaps failed completely (14 percent versus 2 percent; p < 0.01). All SIEA flap failures were attributable to arterial thrombosis.
Compared with DIEP flaps, SIEA flaps had significantly higher proportions of reexploration, arterial complication, necrosis, and failure. No difference in venous complications was found. DIEP outcomes agree with existing literature from specialized centers. Complications and failures in SIEA flaps were attributed to arterial thrombosis. Given the authors' practice setting, SIEA flaps are no longer performed.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
作者分析了采用腹壁浅动脉(SIEA)皮瓣进行乳房重建的患者与腹壁下深动脉穿支(DIEP)皮瓣患者的动脉并发症情况。SIEA的变异性、管径和血管体被认为是局限性因素。目前专家将SIEA重建限制于术前影像学显示动脉解剖结构良好的病例。
在这项回顾性队列研究中,对一位显微外科医生在其执业最初7年(2007年至2013年)期间连续进行的乳房重建皮瓣进行了回顾。未使用术前影像学检查。采用一致的术中标准来选择SIEA皮瓣。所有并发症均使用标准化表格和预先设定的标准独立进行一式两份的提取。
对112例患者进行了169例游离皮瓣移植(SIEA皮瓣44例,DIEP皮瓣125例)用于单侧或双侧乳房重建。与DIEP皮瓣相比,需要再次探查的SIEA皮瓣明显更多(20%对7%;p = 0.03)。SIEA皮瓣中动脉供血不足的发生率明显更高(14%对1%;p = 0.001)。静脉供血不足方面无差异(p = 0.92)。需要干预的坏死性SIEA皮瓣明显更多(p = 0.03)。最终,完全失败的SIEA皮瓣明显更多(14%对2%;p < 0.01)。所有SIEA皮瓣失败均归因于动脉血栓形成。
与DIEP皮瓣相比,SIEA皮瓣再次探查、动脉并发症、坏死和失败的比例明显更高。静脉并发症方面未发现差异。DIEP皮瓣的结果与专业中心的现有文献一致。SIEA皮瓣的并发症和失败归因于动脉血栓形成。鉴于作者的执业环境,不再进行SIEA皮瓣移植。
临床问题/证据级别:治疗性,III级