Page 8 - Read Online
P. 8

Olla et al. Plast Aesthet Res 2024;11:24  https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2347-9264.2024.30  Page 3 of 14

               Given its long pedicle, muscle preservation, easy contouring of the soft tissue, and minimal aesthetic
               shortcomings of the donor site, PAP flaps are an excellent second choice for autologous breast
               reconstruction. This review will summarize the indications, vascular anatomy, preoperative planning,
               operative technique, and postoperative care when utilizing a PAP flap in breast reconstruction.


               CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS
               Ideal patients for PAP flaps require small to moderate breast volume and have excess tissue in the posterior
               thigh region. Ideal candidates are pear-shaped, carrying most of their weight in their thighs, or massive
               weight loss patients that would benefit from a thigh lift. PAP flap patients often have a contraindication to
               abdominally based flaps. This includes patients with prior abdominal surgeries that have affected the blood
               supply to the lower abdomen (i.e., liposuction, abdominoplasty, laparotomy) or those patients who have
               already had a DIEP flap . If there is concern about the integrity of the vascularity when evaluating a patient
                                   [23]
               for potential abdominally based free tissue transfer, imaging with CTA or MRA can provide additional
               information to determine candidacy.


               Other patients may not have enough abdominal tissue to provide adequate volume flaps. Multiple studies
               have found that individuals with low body mass index (BMI) and without adequate abdominal tissue can
               harvest enough soft tissue for breast reconstruction with PAP flaps. The average BMI of patients across
               studies ranges from roughly 22 to 26, with PAP flap weights averaging 300 to 400 g [24-26] . In situations where
               additional soft tissue is needed for breast reconstruction, the PAP flaps can be stacked together for unilateral
               reconstructions or with other donor sites for bilateral reconstructions [27,28] .


               PAP flaps are contraindicated in patients with prior surgery to the donor site, venous insufficiency of the
               lower extremity, history of deep vein thrombosis of the legs, lower extremity lymphedema, and body mass
                             2
               index > 35 kg/m .

               Abdominal-based flaps are generally considered safe for the obese population. However, a higher BMI is
               linked to an increased risk of wound healing issues, infection, and flap failure [29,30] . These findings have
               translated to similar results in the PAP population, showing that increased BMI also raises the risk of donor
               site complications . The decision to limit PAP flap reconstruction to patients with a BMI less than 35 is a
                              [31]
               relative contraindication. Typically, these patients have limited laxity in their thigh region and are prone to
               complications such as seroma formation and wound dehiscence. Furthermore, patients with a higher BMI
               face an increased risk of deep vein thrombosis, which is further compounded by the meticulous
               manipulation of the soft tissues in the thighs required for this procedure. Nevertheless, each patient is
               unique, and an individualized assessment should be undertaken to evaluate the risks and benefits of the
               procedure thoroughly.


               PREOPERATIVE PLANNING
               Successful microsurgery requires meticulous preoperative planning and routinely includes preoperative
               imaging. As imaging has become more accurate in predicting perforator anatomy, computed tomography
               angiography (CTA) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) are being more commonly utilized to
                                                                                [32]
               assess perforator location, size, and anatomic variations preoperatively . Thin slice CTA has been
               commonly used in preoperative imaging as it is widely available, fast, familiar to most surgeons, and
               provides accurate anatomic localization of the perforators. Limitations of CTA include the requirement for
               radiation, complexity in the timing of contrast bolus, and poor opacification of veins. Additionally, the
               images obtained through CTA may not be of the highest quality if radiation dosage constraints are imposed.
               As an alternative, MRA has lower spatial resolution but makes up for it with superior contrast resolution.
   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13