Search

Summary: The lumbar artery perforator flap is a valuable alternative in breast reconstruction whenever the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap is not feasible because of insufficient or unavailable abdominal tissue. The advantage is the ideal shape and consistency of the flap, in addition to the option to perform a nerve anastomosis with the cluneal nerve. The anatomy is consistent, but there are some technical issues related to the short perforator and difficult surgical exposure in the lower back region. The inclusion of a vascular interposition graft improved the authors' results and facilitated their technical challenges and final inset of the flap. These videos guide the surgeon through the different steps involved in a breast reconstruction with the lumbar artery perforator flap., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background:  The lumbar artery perforator flap is a second-choice flap in autologous breast reconstruction whenever a deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap is not possible. Ideal candidates are pear-shaped women who do not have enough bulk on the abdomen or thighs. Patient-reported "satisfaction with breasts" is excellent but we were curious about the donor site morbidity., Methods:  We performed a retrospective study of all lumbar flap breast reconstructions performed between 2010 and 2019. Patients were invited by e-mail and telephone to take part in a BREAST-Q survey., Results:  One hundred fifty-four flaps were performed in 110 patients. Sixty-three patients filled out the BREAST-Q questionnaire. The most frequently observed donor site complications are seroma (35.1%), dehiscence (8.4%), and hematoma (3.2%). Correction of the donor site scar was performed in 31.8% of patients, lipofilling of the donor flank in 5.2%, and liposuction of the contralateral flank in 18.3% of patients. Body mass index (BMI) was the only significant risk factor for donor site complications. Patient-reported "satisfaction with donor site appearance" was good but significantly lower for primary reconstructions compared with secondary and tertiary procedures. Flap weight significantly influences patient-reported "physical wellbeing of the donor site." Ninety-seven percent of patients would recommend the surgery to someone in a similar position and would do it all over., Conclusion:  The lumbar artery perforator flap is a good alternative for breast reconstruction in selected patients. The donor site issues consist mainly of seromas, prolonged discomfort, and a scar that might be noticeable to others, but patient-reported satisfaction is very high., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The number of patients requesting prophylactic mastectomy with immediate reconstruction is rising. The oncological safety of techniques preserving the nipple and/or areola complex is still controversial. Nevertheless, nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and areola-sparing mastectomy (ASM) are becoming increasingly popular. After ASM, traditional nipple reconstruction techniques can be a disappointment and can lead to a deep groove around the new nipple. We describe a technique to overcome these issues and analyzed how three types of mastectomy (skin-sparing mastectomy or SSM, ASM, and NSM) compare to one another by looking into the number of wound infections, extra procedures for the loss of projection, nipple necrosis, and BREAST-Q scores., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 467 breast reconstructions performed in 351 patients between 2011 and 2017 at the University Hospital of Gent. Patients were asked to fill out the BREAST-Q questionnaire and patient-reported outcomes were analyzed and correlated to demographic information., Results: Patients undergoing a nipple reconstruction after ASM are experiencing similar rates of wound problems, extra surgical procedures for the loss of projection and necrosis, compared to women with a history of SSM. When considering the "satisfaction with breast" and "satisfaction with outcome" modules of the BREAST-Q, we noted that nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) patients report lower scores than SSM and ASM patients and ASM patients seem to report a higher "satisfaction with nipple," than the other two treatment groups., Conclusion: An ASM is a valuable alternative to a nipple-sparing mastectomy and leads to a good esthetic result and patient satisfaction., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None of the authors have a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this manuscript., (Crown Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap is the gold standard in autologous breast reconstruction. When the abdomen is not available, alternative donor sites can be found at the buttock, the lumbar region, or the thighs. These flaps are referred to as second-choice flaps. This study compares the superior gluteal artery perforator (SGAP) flap and the lumbar artery perforator (LAP) flap to the DIEP flap using patient-reported outcomes., Methods: A retrospective study was performed reviewing the records of 417 women who underwent a free flap breast reconstruction with either a DIEP, an LAP, or an SGAP flap, between 2006 and 2018. Patients were asked to fill out the BREAST-Q questionnaire, and patient-reported outcomes were analyzed and correlated to the demographic information., Results: The response rate was 54.5 percent, with 50 LAP, 153 DIEP, and 25 SGAP flap patients participating. When questioned about their satisfaction with breasts and satisfaction with outcome, all three procedures were rated similarly high. When comparing the physical well-being of the donor site and appearance of the donor site, LAP flap patients reported significantly lower scores than DIEP and SGAP flap patients., Conclusions: Patients who undergo LAP or SGAP flap breast reconstruction seem similarly satisfied with the appearance and outcome of their free flap breast reconstruction compared with DIEP flap patients. The donor-site morbidity and its impact on the patient's well-being in SGAP and LAP flap patients have been underestimated. Despite more donor-site discomfort, the LAP and SGAP flaps are feasible alternatives whenever the DIEP flap is not possible.

Background: The lumbar artery perforator flap is an excellent free flap for breast reconstruction whenever the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is not an option. The main indication is a lack of abdominal bulk, often seen in young BRCA-positive women seeking prophylactic amputation and immediate reconstruction., Methods: Between October of 2010 and July of 2016, a total of 661 free flap breast reconstructions were performed. The authors retrospectively analyzed patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and secondary corrections., Results: Seventy-six lumbar artery perforator flaps were retained and compared with a cohort of 560 DIEP flaps. The average body mass index for lumbar patients was 23.8 kg/m, with a mean age at operation of 46.3 years. Average body mass index for DIEP patients was 25.2 kg/m, with a mean age at operation of 48.8 years old. Lumbar artery perforator flap weight was 504 g (range, 77 to 1216 g) on average versus 530 g (range, 108 to 1968 g) for the DIEP flaps. The amount of corrective procedures performed was very similar in both cohorts: 13 percent of the lumbar artery perforator and 12 percent of the DIEP patients underwent no procedures, 62 percent in both groups underwent one procedure, and 25 percent versus 27 percent underwent two or more procedures. Lipofilling was performed in 48 percent of lumbar artery perforator flaps compared with 57 percent of the DIEP flaps (p = 0.14). Mean volume injected was 98.0 cc and 125.1 cc for lumbar artery perforator and DIEP flaps, respectively (p = 0.071)., Conclusions: The lumbar flap is a good alternative whenever a DIEP flap is not possible. Bilateral autologous reconstruction is possible even in very thin patients, and secondary corrections are comparable to those for the DIEP.

Background: The deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap is considered the gold standard in autologous breast reconstruction. In bilateral cases, both flaps are often anastomosed to the internal mammary vessels on either side of the sternum. The authors propose a method in which both flaps are anastomosed to only the right side internal mammary artery and vein., Methods: Between November of 2009 and March of 2018, 125 patients underwent bilateral DIEP flap breast reconstruction with this technique. One flap is perfused by the anterograde proximal internal mammary artery and the second one by the retrograde distal internal mammary artery after presternal tunneling. Patient demographics and operative details were reviewed retrospectively., Results: Two hundred fifty flaps were performed. One hundred fifty-two flaps were prophylactic or primary reconstructions (60.8 percent), 70 were secondary reconstructions (28 percent), and 28 were tertiary reconstructions (11.2 percent). Mean patient age was 46 years, and the mean body mass index was 25 kg/m. Sixty patients underwent radiation therapy or chemotherapy (48 percent). The authors encountered one significant partial failure (0.4 percent) and nine complete flap failures (3.6 percent). The authors did not see a statistically significant predisposition for failure comparing the retrograde with the anterograde flow flaps, nor when comparing the tunneled with the nontunneled flaps., Conclusions: The authors' results show that anastomosing both DIEP flaps to a single set of mammary vessels is safe and reliable. The authors conclude that the retrograde flow through the distal internal mammary artery is sufficient for free flap perfusion and that subcutaneous tunneling of a free flap pedicle does not predispose to flap failure., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, IV.

Background: The lumbar artery perforator flap is an alternative flap in breast reconstruction for those patients who are not eligible for a deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEAP) flap. Shaping of this flap is easier compared with other flaps because of the quality of the lumbar fat and the gluteal extension., Methods: Between October of 2010 and June of 2017, a total of 100 lumbar artery perforator free flap breast reconstructions were performed in 72 patients. Patient demographics, indications, flap specifics, and complications were reviewed retrospectively., Results: Twenty-eight bilateral and 44 unilateral breast reconstructions with a lumbar artery perforator flap were performed. Mean patient age was 48 years, and the average body mass index was 23.11 kg/m. The authors report 43 preventive mastectomies for elevated cancer risk with subsequent immediate reconstruction, 34 secondary reconstructions, and 14 tertiary reconstructions. Mean operative time was 7 hours 4 minutes, including the mastectomy in primary cases. Mean flap weight was 499 g (range, 77 to 1216 g) and mean follow-up time was 30 months. The revision rate was 22 percent and nine flaps were lost., Conclusions: The lumbar artery perforator flap is a valuable alternative to the DIEAP flap in breast reconstructive surgery. It is an excellent flap for BRCA-positive patients who are typically young and have limited excess tissue at the conventional donor sites. Despite higher revision rates compared with the DIEAP flap, the lumbar flap is superior in mimicking the shape and feel of native breast tissue. Scarring at the donor site remains a sore point but can be easily treated and used to an advantage to contour the flanks., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, IV.

Autologous breast reconstruction can be challenging in mastectomy patients who are not eligible for a deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap reconstruction. Depending on body habitus, alternative donor sites for free flap transfer can be found on the back, the thighs, and in the gluteal area. These alternative flaps can demand a higher level of expertise, which should be mastered by the modern day reconstructive microsurgeon. The flap choice should be tailored individually to each patient and should not be limited by the difficulty of the surgery., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)