Long-Term Outcome Analysis and Technical Refinements after Autologous Breast Reconstruction with PAP Flap: What We Have Learnt

One versus two vein anastomoses in breast reconstruction with a profunda artery perforator flap-does it make a difference

BACKGROUND

The profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap has gained popularity as a reliable alternative in breast reconstruction. Extensive research has focused on its vascular supply, dissection techniques, and broader applications beyond breast reconstruction. This study aims to investigate the correlation between the number of veins anastomosed for the PAP flap and postoperative complications.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the outcomes of breast reconstructions with PAP flaps at our institution between 2018 and 2022. A total of 103 PAP flaps in 88 patients were included. Statistical analysis was performed to compare outcomes between flaps with one vein anastomosis and those with two vein anastomoses. Patient characteristics, intra and postoperative parameters were analysed.

RESULTS

One vein anastomosis was used in 36 flaps (35.0%), whereas two vein anastomoses were used in 67 flaps (65.0%). No significant differences were found in patient characteristics between the one vein and two vein groups. The comparison of ischemia times between flaps with one versus two veins revealed no statistically significant difference, with mean ischemia times of 56.2 ± 36.8 min and 58.7 ± 33.0 min, respectively. Regarding outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences in secondary lipofilling, revision of vein anastomosis, or total flap loss between the two groups. Fat necrosis was observed in 5 (13.9%) one vein flaps and 5 (7.5%) two vein flaps, indicating no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = .313). In the one vein group, the most frequently employed coupler ring had a diameter of 2.5 mm. In the two vein group, the most prevalent combination consisted of a 2.0 mm diameter with a 2.5 mm diameter.

CONCLUSION

Based on our study results, both one vein anastomosis and two vein anastomoses are viable options for breast reconstruction with PAP flap. The utilization of either one or two veins did not significantly affect ischemia time or flap loss. Fat necrosis exhibited a higher incidence in the single-vein group; however, this difference was also not statistically significant. These findings underscore the effectiveness of both approaches, providing surgeons with flexibility in tailoring their surgical techniques based on patient-specific considerations and anatomical factors.

Expander prosthesis and DIEP flaps in delayed breast reconstruction: Sensibility, patient-reported outcome, and complications in a five-year randomised follow-up study

Breast reconstruction is a given choice for many women following mastectomy. There are a multitude of methods available today, and thus, comparative studies are essential to match patients with suitable methods. The aim of this study was to compare 5-year outcomes following delayed breast reconstruction with expander prosthesis (EP) and with deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps. Seventy-three patients, previously randomised to either a permanent EP or a DIEP flap breast reconstruction, were invited for a 5-year follow-up. Assessments included symmetry measurements, breast sensibility with Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments and patient-reported outcome (PRO) with the BREAST-Q. Complications within the first 5 postoperative years were recorded. Additionally, BREAST-Q questionnaires were collected from non-randomised patients with an EP breast reconstruction. Between 2019 and 2022, 65 patients completed the follow-ups. Symmetry and PRO were significantly higher in the DIEP flap group. However, EP-reconstructed breasts were significantly more sensate and demonstrated areas with protective sensibility, unlike the DIEP flap breasts. The overall complication rates were comparable between the two groups (p = 0.27). Regression analysis identified body mass index as a risk factor for reoperation in general anaesthesia and for wound infection. No significant differences were found in a comparison of the randomised and the non-randomised EP groups' BREAST-Q results. This randomised 5-year follow-up study found PRO to be favourable following a DIEP flap reconstruction and sensibility to be better in EP reconstructions. The complication rates were comparable; however, longer follow-ups are warranted to cover the complete lifespans of the two breast reconstruction methods.

Long-Term Results after Autologous Breast Reconstruction with DIEP versus PAP Flaps Based on Quality of Life and Aesthetic Outcome Analysis

(1) Background: This work aimed to conduct a comparative study, providing long-term data about patient-reported outcome measures and donor site scar assessments, as well as an aesthetic evaluation of the reconstructed breasts in patients with DIEP versus PAP flap breast reconstruction. (2) Methods: This prospective, single-center, matched cohort study included a total of 36 patients after DIEP and PAP flap breast reconstruction. The evaluation was carried out using the Breast-Q and POSAS questionnaire, as well as the Breast Aesthetic Scale for cosmetic analysis, by four plastic surgeons. (3) Results: The postoperative Breast-Q evaluation revealed no significant differences between both patient groups for the categories of the physical well-being of the donor site, the physical well-being of the breast, and satisfaction with the breast. A scar evaluation of the donor site region showed equivalent results for the thigh and abdomen regions, concerning the overall opinion of the patients and the observers. There was no significant difference between both methods of reconstruction for all aspects of breast aesthetics. (4) Conclusions: Similar results for donor site morbidity, scar quality, and the aesthetic outcome of the breasts in both the DIEP and PAP patient groups have been demonstrated. Hence, in those cases suitable for both types of reconstruction, the decision can be based on factors such as patients' lifestyles, leisure activities, and preferences.