Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2009 May;62(5):560-3.
doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e31819faf0d.

Free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous and deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps for breast reconstruction: a systematic review of flap complication rates and donor-site morbidity

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous and deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps for breast reconstruction: a systematic review of flap complication rates and donor-site morbidity

Alexander M Sailon et al. Ann Plast Surg. 2009 May.

Abstract

Free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous and deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps represent increasingly popular options for breast reconstruction. Although several retrospective, small-scale studies comparing these flaps have been published, most have failed to find a significant difference in flap complication rates or donor-site morbidity. We systematically reviewed the current literature, and subsequently pooled and analyzed data from included studies. Included studies reported flap complications and/or donor site morbidities for both flap types. Eight studies met the inclusionary criteria. For flap complications, there was a statistically significant difference between deep inferior epigastric perforator and free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps in fat necrosis rates (25.5 +/- 0.49 vs. 11.3% +/- 0.41%, P < 0.001) and total necrosis rates (4.15 +/- 0.08 vs. 1.59% +/- 0.08%, P = 0.044). Partial necrosis rates were not statistically significant (3.54 +/- 0.07 vs. 1.60% +/- 0.07%, P = 0.057). For donor-site morbidity, there was no statistically significant difference in abdominal bulge (8.07 +/- 0.23 vs. 11.25% +/- 0.29%, P = 0.28). Multicenter, prospective studies are needed to further investigate differences between these flap options.

PubMed Disclaimer