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
. 2013 Dec;132(6):1383-1391.
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a805a3.

Comprehensive analysis of donor-site morbidity in abdominally based free flap breast reconstruction

Edward I Chang  1 , Eric I Chang, Miguel A Soto-Miranda, Hong Zhang, Naveed Nosrati, Geoffrey L Robb, David W Chang
Affiliations

Comprehensive analysis of donor-site morbidity in abdominally based free flap breast reconstruction

Edward I Chang et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Dec.

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis of factors that might contribute to abdominal donor-site morbidity after abdominally based free flap breast reconstruction.

Methods: The authors performed a retrospective analysis of all abdominally based free flap breast reconstructions performed from January of 2000 through December of 2010 at their institution.

Results: Overall, 89 of 1507 patients developed an abdominal bulge/hernia (unilateral: 57 of 1044; bilateral: 32 of 463). A unilateral transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap was significantly more likely to develop an abdominal bulge/hernia than was a muscle-sparing TRAM flap or a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap (9.9 percent versus 3.7 percent versus 5.9 percent; p = 0.004). However, there was no difference in the risk of developing an abdominal bulge/hernia between a muscle-sparing TRAM and a DIEP flap (p = 0.36). Patients who underwent bilateral reconstructions were 1.35 times more likely to develop an abdominal bulge/hernia than patients who underwent unilateral reconstruction, but the difference was not significant. Harvesting more fascia as occurs when both medial and lateral rows are used was significantly associated with need for mesh (p < 0.0001). Overall, placement of mesh for fascia closure reduced the odds of occurrence of bulge/hernia by 70 percent compared with primary fascia closure.

Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the risk of developing abdominal bulge/hernia between bilateral versus unilateral breast reconstruction. For abdominally based free flap breast reconstruction, the extent of the fascia harvested, how it is repaired, and the amount of muscle preserved might play an important role in donor-site morbidity.

Clinical question/level of evidence: Therapeutic, III.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. King TA, Sakr R, Patil S, et al. Clinical management factors contribute to the decision for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2158–2164.
    1. Yao K, Stewart AK, Winchester DJ, Winchester DP. Trends in contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral cancer: A report from the National Cancer Data Base, 1998–2007. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2554–2562.
    1. Boughey JC, Hoskin TL, Degnim AC, et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is associated with a survival advantage in high-risk women with a personal history of breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2702–2709.
    1. Brewster AM, Bedrosian I, Parker PA, et al. Association between contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and breast cancer outcomes by hormone receptor status. Cancer. 2012;118:5637–5643.
    1. Chung A, Huynh K, Lawrence C, Sim MS, Giuliano A. Comparison of patient characteristics and outcomes of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and unilateral total mastectomy in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:2600–2606.

MeSH terms