Page 11 - Read Online
P. 11

EL-Sabawi et al.                                                                                                                                                          Restoration of failed breast reconstruction

           Table 2: Studies reporting surgical outcomes of autologous conversion following failed or unsatisfactory
           prosthetic-based reconstruction
                                                                                  Surgical outcomes
                                       Indications for                            Total
                              Breasts                                Microsurgical         Total    Revisional-
           Authors                       autologous      Flap choice              flap            *        #
                                (n)                                    revisions,      complications ,  surgery ,
                                         conversion                               loss,
                                                                         n (%)             n (%)      n (%)
                                                                                 n (%)
                       [10]
           Roostaeian et al.  2016   121  62 % CC; 13% rupture;   60% DIEP; 26%   2 (1.7)  4 (2.5)  33 (27.2)  -
                                    7% mastectomy; infection  fTRAM; SIEA 7%;
                                        4%; 13% other  SGAP 5%; Other 2%
                   [18]
           Pülzl et al.  2015   52    61% Grade I-II CC;   Depithelialized free   0  0       -       13 (81.3) C
                                      39% grade III-IV CC;   TMG
                                     85% pain; 73% foreign
                                      body sensation; 52%
                                         asymmetry
                    [20]
           Mohan et al.  2013   29     Grade III-IV CC,   76% DIEP; 14% LD   -   2 (6.9)     -          -
                                     asymmetry, extrusion,   +/- implant; 10%
                                       exposure, or poor   fTRAM
                                          cosmesis
                    [21]
           Rabey et al.  2013   14    100% poor cosmesis;   64% DIEP; 36%   -      0      2 (14.2)    1 (7.1)
                                    86% pain; 64% CC; 43%   msTRAM
                                          tightness
                   [6]
           Spear et al.  2013   7     66% infection; 24%   43% DIEP; 29%   -       0         -          -
                                     exposure; 10% infection  LD + implant; 14%
                                        and exposure   msTRAM; 14% LD
                   [22]
           Peled et al.  2012   5       100% infection  DIEP or TRAM      -        0         -          -
                    [9]
           Levine et al.  2011   284  46% grade III-IV CC;   58% DIEP; 18%   11 (3.7)  3 (1.1)  57 (20.1)  13 (4.6)
                                     41% grade I-II CC; 8%  SGAP; 12% IGAP;
                                       infection; 5% other  11% SIEA; 2% TUG
                    [7]
           Hamdi et al.  2010   81  46% poor cosmesis; 24%  81% DIEP; 14%   4 (4.9)  1 (1.2)  -       29 (53)
                                     infection/exposure; 24%   SIEA; 5% TMG
                                      CC; 4% recurrence
                    [11]
           Visser et al.  2010   61  68% pain/tightness; 64%  77% DIEP; 16%   2 (3.3)  0  21 (34.4)   19 (45)
                                      poor cosmesis; 14%   mini-TRAM; 7%
                                          infection         TMG
                       [23]
           Gurunlougu et al.  2005   14  100% grade III-IV CC  43% msTRAM; 36%   -  0      1 (7.1)      -
                                                        DIEP; 21% SIEA
                      [24]
           Mosahebi et al.  2005   10  100% grade III-IV CC,   DIEP       0        0      1 (10.0)      -
                                     pain; and poor cosmesis
           Weiss and Ship  1995  18  89% CC; 22% implant   61% DMP; 39%   -        0      4 (22.2)      -
                      [26]
                                       failure; 11% pain   pTRAM
                   [27]
           Feng et al.  1994    52  82% CC; 29% rupture; 6%  62% fTRAM; 21%   1 (1.9)  3 (5.8)  6 (11.6)  -
                                          infection     SGAP; 17% LD
                                                               #
           *Complication rate reported as a percentage of the total number of flaps;  includes breast related operations performed to improve aesthetic
                                                      c
           outcome or symmetry, not including nipple reconstruction;  reported revisions required in patients with unilateral reconstructions only (n
           = 16). CC: capsular contracture; DIEP: deep inferior epigastric perforator flap; fTRAM: free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous
           flap; msTRAM, muscle sparing TRAM; SIEA: superficial inferior epigastric artery flap; IGAP: inferior gluteal artery perforator flap; SGAP:
           superior gluteal artery perforator flap; TMG: transverse myocutaneousgracilis flap; LD: latissimus dorsi flap; TUG: transverse upper gracilis
           flap; DPM: dual pedicle dermoparenchymalmastopexy
                             2
           BMI was 24.7 kg/m . Prior to autologous salvage, 23   Four studies included outcomes following tertiary
           (42.6%) patients received neoadjuvant or adjuvant   reconstruction using pedicle flaps (33 patients) [8,20,28,29]
           radiotherapy. Initial autologous reconstructions   and 2 studies included microsurgical free flaps (21
           consisted of 18 (33.3%) pedicle TRAM flaps, 14     patients) [8,16] . Of the studies utilizing free flaps, total flap
           (25.9%) DIEP flaps, 12 LD flaps (22.2%), 4 (7.4%) free   loss was reported in 2 breasts (9.5%; range 0-22.2%),
           TRAM flaps, 3 (5.6%) SGAP flaps, 2 (3.7%) SIEA flaps,   one occurring with a SGAP flap and the other with a
           and 1 (1.9%) TMG flap. The most common indications   TMG flap. One partial flap loss (4.8%; range 0-8.3%)
           for autologous salvage included total flap loss in   occurred following reconstruction with a contralateral
           30 (55.6%) breasts, partial flap loss in 16 (29.6%)   free LD flap. No total or partial flap loss was reported
           breasts, and fat necrosis in 4 (7.4%) breasts. The most   with pedicle LD flap reconstruction. Revisional surgery
           common flap utilized for tertiary reconstruction was the   to improve aesthetic outcome occurred in 23 breasts
           LD flap which was used in 31 breasts (57.4%). Other   (70.0%; range 42.8-92.9%). Total complications were
           flaps reported include the contralateral free LD flap in   reported in 19 breasts (42.2%; range 14.2-64.3%).
           12 (22.2%) breasts, SGAP in 5 (9.3%) breasts, TMG in   Complications besides total/partial flap failure included
           3 (5.6%) breasts, thoracodorsal artery perforator flap   one hematoma (2.1%; range 0-7.1%), one infection
           (TDAP) in 2 (3.7%) breasts, and DIEP flap in 1 (1.9%)   (2.1%; range 0-8.3%), 11 seroma (23.4%; range 7.1-
           breast.                                            57.1%), and 2 wound healing problems (6.5%; range
                           Plastic and Aesthetic Research ¦ Volume 4 ¦ October 31, 2017                   199
   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16