Cargando…

Bilateral Simultaneous Breast Reconstruction with DIEP- and TMG Flaps: Head to Head Comparison, Risk and Complication Analysis

Background: A two center retrospective cohort study of simultaneous bilateral breast reconstructions using double deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps and double transverse myocutaneous/upper gracilis (TMG) flaps was conducted. The aim of this study was to compare surgical procedures, co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Weitgasser, Laurenz, Schwaiger, Karl, Medved, Fabian, Hamler, Felix, Wechselberger, Gottfried, Schoeller, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7409039/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32605294
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9072031
_version_ 1783567971925360640
author Weitgasser, Laurenz
Schwaiger, Karl
Medved, Fabian
Hamler, Felix
Wechselberger, Gottfried
Schoeller, Thomas
author_facet Weitgasser, Laurenz
Schwaiger, Karl
Medved, Fabian
Hamler, Felix
Wechselberger, Gottfried
Schoeller, Thomas
author_sort Weitgasser, Laurenz
collection PubMed
description Background: A two center retrospective cohort study of simultaneous bilateral breast reconstructions using double deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps and double transverse myocutaneous/upper gracilis (TMG) flaps was conducted. The aim of this study was to compare surgical procedures, complications, and overall outcome. Patients and Methods: Two study groups, either receiving a simultaneous bilateral breast reconstruction, with double DIEP flaps (n = 152) in group 1, or double TMG flaps (n = 86) in group 2, were compared. A detailed risk and complication analysis was performed. Patient characteristics, operative time and the need for further operations were evaluated. Results: Double DIEP patients had donor site complications in 23.7% and double TMG patients in 16.3% (p = 0.9075, RR 1.45). Flap loss rates of 3.5% (double TMG) and 2.6% (double DIEP) were recorded (p = 0.7071, RR 1.33). The need for postoperative lipofilling was significantly higher in double TMG patients (65.1% vs. 38.2 %, p = 0.0047, RR 1.71). Conclusion: Complication analysis favors the double DIEP procedure. Donor site morbidity was lower and less severe in the double TMG group. Later fat grafting was more frequently needed after double TMG reconstructions. Further studies, preferably of prospective nature, are needed to evaluate the benefit of bilateral simultaneous breast reconstructions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7409039
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74090392020-08-26 Bilateral Simultaneous Breast Reconstruction with DIEP- and TMG Flaps: Head to Head Comparison, Risk and Complication Analysis Weitgasser, Laurenz Schwaiger, Karl Medved, Fabian Hamler, Felix Wechselberger, Gottfried Schoeller, Thomas J Clin Med Article Background: A two center retrospective cohort study of simultaneous bilateral breast reconstructions using double deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps and double transverse myocutaneous/upper gracilis (TMG) flaps was conducted. The aim of this study was to compare surgical procedures, complications, and overall outcome. Patients and Methods: Two study groups, either receiving a simultaneous bilateral breast reconstruction, with double DIEP flaps (n = 152) in group 1, or double TMG flaps (n = 86) in group 2, were compared. A detailed risk and complication analysis was performed. Patient characteristics, operative time and the need for further operations were evaluated. Results: Double DIEP patients had donor site complications in 23.7% and double TMG patients in 16.3% (p = 0.9075, RR 1.45). Flap loss rates of 3.5% (double TMG) and 2.6% (double DIEP) were recorded (p = 0.7071, RR 1.33). The need for postoperative lipofilling was significantly higher in double TMG patients (65.1% vs. 38.2 %, p = 0.0047, RR 1.71). Conclusion: Complication analysis favors the double DIEP procedure. Donor site morbidity was lower and less severe in the double TMG group. Later fat grafting was more frequently needed after double TMG reconstructions. Further studies, preferably of prospective nature, are needed to evaluate the benefit of bilateral simultaneous breast reconstructions. MDPI 2020-06-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7409039/ /pubmed/32605294 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9072031 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Weitgasser, Laurenz
Schwaiger, Karl
Medved, Fabian
Hamler, Felix
Wechselberger, Gottfried
Schoeller, Thomas
Bilateral Simultaneous Breast Reconstruction with DIEP- and TMG Flaps: Head to Head Comparison, Risk and Complication Analysis
title Bilateral Simultaneous Breast Reconstruction with DIEP- and TMG Flaps: Head to Head Comparison, Risk and Complication Analysis
title_full Bilateral Simultaneous Breast Reconstruction with DIEP- and TMG Flaps: Head to Head Comparison, Risk and Complication Analysis
title_fullStr Bilateral Simultaneous Breast Reconstruction with DIEP- and TMG Flaps: Head to Head Comparison, Risk and Complication Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Bilateral Simultaneous Breast Reconstruction with DIEP- and TMG Flaps: Head to Head Comparison, Risk and Complication Analysis
title_short Bilateral Simultaneous Breast Reconstruction with DIEP- and TMG Flaps: Head to Head Comparison, Risk and Complication Analysis
title_sort bilateral simultaneous breast reconstruction with diep- and tmg flaps: head to head comparison, risk and complication analysis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7409039/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32605294
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9072031
work_keys_str_mv AT weitgasserlaurenz bilateralsimultaneousbreastreconstructionwithdiepandtmgflapsheadtoheadcomparisonriskandcomplicationanalysis
AT schwaigerkarl bilateralsimultaneousbreastreconstructionwithdiepandtmgflapsheadtoheadcomparisonriskandcomplicationanalysis
AT medvedfabian bilateralsimultaneousbreastreconstructionwithdiepandtmgflapsheadtoheadcomparisonriskandcomplicationanalysis
AT hamlerfelix bilateralsimultaneousbreastreconstructionwithdiepandtmgflapsheadtoheadcomparisonriskandcomplicationanalysis
AT wechselbergergottfried bilateralsimultaneousbreastreconstructionwithdiepandtmgflapsheadtoheadcomparisonriskandcomplicationanalysis
AT schoellerthomas bilateralsimultaneousbreastreconstructionwithdiepandtmgflapsheadtoheadcomparisonriskandcomplicationanalysis