Comparing Donor Site Morbidity for Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Thigh vs. Abdomen

Background:. Although abdominally-based free flaps have long been the gold standard, the profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap has emerged as an important alternative option for autologous breast reconstruction. The aim of this study was to directly compare the donor site morbidity of using the PAP...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Z-Hye Lee, MD, Carrie K. Chu, MD, Malke Asaad, BA, Jessie Liu, PhD, Jesse C. Selber, MD, Charles E. Butler, MD, Rene D. Largo, MD
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer 2022-03-01
Series:Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open
Online Access:http://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/10.1097/GOX.0000000000004215
_version_ 1818744579135897600
author Z-Hye Lee, MD
Carrie K. Chu, MD
Malke Asaad, BA
Jessie Liu, PhD
Jesse C. Selber, MD
Charles E. Butler, MD
Rene D. Largo, MD
author_facet Z-Hye Lee, MD
Carrie K. Chu, MD
Malke Asaad, BA
Jessie Liu, PhD
Jesse C. Selber, MD
Charles E. Butler, MD
Rene D. Largo, MD
author_sort Z-Hye Lee, MD
collection DOAJ
description Background:. Although abdominally-based free flaps have long been the gold standard, the profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap has emerged as an important alternative option for autologous breast reconstruction. The aim of this study was to directly compare the donor site morbidity of using the PAP versus deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) free flap. Methods:. We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction using a DIEP and/or PAP flap from January 2017 to December 2020. In total, 30 PAP flap patients were matched with 60 DIEP flap patients. Outcomes included donor site wound dehiscence, length of stay, narcotic consumption, and pain scores. Patient-reported outcomes for the thigh versus abdomen were compared using questions derived from the BREAST-Q. Results:. There was no significant difference in length of stay (P = 0.182), reoperation rates (P = 0.999), flap failure rates (P = 0.999), or donor site complications (P = 0.999). Both groups had similar mean pain scores, maximum pain scores, daily and total narcotic requirements. In comparing the thigh or abdomen as a donor site, there was no difference in frequency of negative symptoms (difficulty with daily activities, discomfort, tightness, and negative impact on ability to work) or satisfaction scores as related to their appearance in and out of clothing and the appearance of the scar. Conclusions:. The thigh and abdomen are both suitable donor sites for autologous breast reconstruction with similar flap-related and patient-reported outcomes. The ultimate decision regarding whether to use a PAP or DIEP flap for breast reconstruction should be tailored based on patient anatomy and preference.
first_indexed 2024-12-18T02:46:33Z
format Article
id doaj.art-a85bf7481a754e2b9b42ffa2afa50882
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2169-7574
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-18T02:46:33Z
publishDate 2022-03-01
publisher Wolters Kluwer
record_format Article
series Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open
spelling doaj.art-a85bf7481a754e2b9b42ffa2afa508822022-12-21T21:23:33ZengWolters KluwerPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open2169-75742022-03-01103e421510.1097/GOX.0000000000004215202203000-00052Comparing Donor Site Morbidity for Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Thigh vs. AbdomenZ-Hye Lee, MD0Carrie K. Chu, MD1Malke Asaad, BA2Jessie Liu, PhD3Jesse C. Selber, MD4Charles E. Butler, MD5Rene D. Largo, MD6From the Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex.From the Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex.From the Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex.From the Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex.From the Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex.From the Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex.From the Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Tex.Background:. Although abdominally-based free flaps have long been the gold standard, the profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap has emerged as an important alternative option for autologous breast reconstruction. The aim of this study was to directly compare the donor site morbidity of using the PAP versus deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) free flap. Methods:. We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction using a DIEP and/or PAP flap from January 2017 to December 2020. In total, 30 PAP flap patients were matched with 60 DIEP flap patients. Outcomes included donor site wound dehiscence, length of stay, narcotic consumption, and pain scores. Patient-reported outcomes for the thigh versus abdomen were compared using questions derived from the BREAST-Q. Results:. There was no significant difference in length of stay (P = 0.182), reoperation rates (P = 0.999), flap failure rates (P = 0.999), or donor site complications (P = 0.999). Both groups had similar mean pain scores, maximum pain scores, daily and total narcotic requirements. In comparing the thigh or abdomen as a donor site, there was no difference in frequency of negative symptoms (difficulty with daily activities, discomfort, tightness, and negative impact on ability to work) or satisfaction scores as related to their appearance in and out of clothing and the appearance of the scar. Conclusions:. The thigh and abdomen are both suitable donor sites for autologous breast reconstruction with similar flap-related and patient-reported outcomes. The ultimate decision regarding whether to use a PAP or DIEP flap for breast reconstruction should be tailored based on patient anatomy and preference.http://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/10.1097/GOX.0000000000004215
spellingShingle Z-Hye Lee, MD
Carrie K. Chu, MD
Malke Asaad, BA
Jessie Liu, PhD
Jesse C. Selber, MD
Charles E. Butler, MD
Rene D. Largo, MD
Comparing Donor Site Morbidity for Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Thigh vs. Abdomen
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open
title Comparing Donor Site Morbidity for Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Thigh vs. Abdomen
title_full Comparing Donor Site Morbidity for Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Thigh vs. Abdomen
title_fullStr Comparing Donor Site Morbidity for Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Thigh vs. Abdomen
title_full_unstemmed Comparing Donor Site Morbidity for Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Thigh vs. Abdomen
title_short Comparing Donor Site Morbidity for Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Thigh vs. Abdomen
title_sort comparing donor site morbidity for autologous breast reconstruction thigh vs abdomen
url http://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/10.1097/GOX.0000000000004215
work_keys_str_mv AT zhyeleemd comparingdonorsitemorbidityforautologousbreastreconstructionthighvsabdomen
AT carriekchumd comparingdonorsitemorbidityforautologousbreastreconstructionthighvsabdomen
AT malkeasaadba comparingdonorsitemorbidityforautologousbreastreconstructionthighvsabdomen
AT jessieliuphd comparingdonorsitemorbidityforautologousbreastreconstructionthighvsabdomen
AT jessecselbermd comparingdonorsitemorbidityforautologousbreastreconstructionthighvsabdomen
AT charlesebutlermd comparingdonorsitemorbidityforautologousbreastreconstructionthighvsabdomen
AT renedlargomd comparingdonorsitemorbidityforautologousbreastreconstructionthighvsabdomen