Cargando…

Use of Single-recipient Vessels for Cross-chest Abdominal Flap–based Breast Augmentation as an Outpatient

Breast reconstruction with autologous tissue following mastectomy for breast cancer has become the standard of care. Microvascular breast augmentation is an alternative for patients with failed breast prostheses, including painful capsular contractures or poor cosmetic outcomes. We present a series...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Deramo, Paul, Martinez, Carlos A., Boutros, Sean G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7413810/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32802670
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002978
Descripción
Sumario:Breast reconstruction with autologous tissue following mastectomy for breast cancer has become the standard of care. Microvascular breast augmentation is an alternative for patients with failed breast prostheses, including painful capsular contractures or poor cosmetic outcomes. We present a series of 4 patients who underwent microvascular breast augmentation with cross-chest flap recipient vessels. METHODS: We perform a bilateral DIEP flap reconstruction in an outpatient setting following a modified recovery protocol, focused on decreasing postoperative pain and narcotic requirements, allowing early ambulation and discharge. This includes harvest of the flap via abdominal microfascial incisions and rib-sparing vessel dissection. Cosmetic microvascular augmentation of the contralateral breast was performed via cross-chest flap recipient vessel anastomoses, where the pedicle was tunneled across the chest and anastomosed to the primary flap. RESULTS: Four patients underwent flap-based breast augmentation with cross-chest recipient vessels. Two patients underwent immediate DIEP flap breast reconstruction of the affected side and contralateral flap-based augmentation, while 2 patients underwent bilateral breast augmentation with DIEP flaps for cosmetic purposes due to undesired cosmetic results following implant-based augmentations. No intraoperative complications were reported, and all patients were discharged within 23 hours without signs of flap compromise or need for operative take-backs. Mean follow-up was 23 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The DIEP flap is recognized as an option for breast augmentation, although its limitations are several, including the pain and recovery associated with autologous tissue-based breast reconstruction. Enhanced recovery protocols help reduce this burden, making it more acceptable and feasible.