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
. 2014 Jan;41(1):63-70.
doi: 10.5999/aps.2014.41.1.63. Epub 2014 Jan 13.

The impact of perforator number on deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction

Ritwik Grover  1 , Jonas A Nelson  1 , John P Fischer  1 , Stephen J Kovach  1 , Joseph M Serletti  1 , Liza C Wu  1
Affiliations

The impact of perforator number on deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction

Ritwik Grover et al. Arch Plast Surg. 2014 Jan.

Abstract

Background: Perforator flaps minimize abdominal site morbidity during autologous breast reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the number of perforators harvested influences the overall deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap survival and flap-related complications.

Methods: A retrospective review was performed of all DIEP flaps performed at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania from 2006 to 2011. The outcomes assessed included flap loss and major complications. We compared flaps by the number of total perforators (1-4) and then carried out a subgroup analysis comparing flaps with one perforator to flaps with multiple perforators. Lastly, we conducted a post-hoc analysis based on body mass index (BMI) categorization.

Results: Three hundred thirty-three patients underwent 395 DIEP flaps. No significant differences were noted in the flap loss rate or the overall complications across perforator groups. However, the subgroup analysis revealed significantly higher rates of fat necrosis in the case of one-perforator flaps than in the case of multiple-perforator flaps (10.2% vs. 3.1%, P=0.009). The post-hoc analysis revealed a significant increase in the flap loss rate with increasing BMI (<30=2.0%, 30-34.9=3.1%, 35-39.9=3.1%, >40=42.9%, P<0.001) in the DIEP flaps, but no increase in fat necrosis.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the number of perforators does not impact the rate of flap survival. However, the rate of fat necrosis may be significantly higher in DIEP flaps based on a single perforator. Multiple perforators should be utilized if possible to decrease the risk of fat necrosis.

Keywords: Breast reconstruction; Microsurgery; Outcome assessment (health care).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References

    1. Sisco M, Du H, Warner JP, et al. Have we expanded the equitable delivery of postmastectomy breast reconstruction in the new millennium? Evidence from the national cancer data base. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215:658–666. - PubMed
    1. Man LX, Selber JC, Serletti JM. Abdominal wall following free TRAM or DIEP flap reconstruction: a meta-analysis and critical review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:752–764. - PubMed
    1. Garvey PB, Buchel EW, Pockaj BA, et al. DIEP and pedicled TRAM flaps: a comparison of outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117:1711–1719. - PubMed
    1. Selber JC, Nelson J, Fosnot J, et al. A prospective study comparing the functional impact of SIEA, DIEP, and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps on the abdominal wall: part I. unilateral reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:1142–1153. - PubMed
    1. Selber JC, Fosnot J, Nelson J, et al. A prospective study comparing the functional impact of SIEA, DIEP, and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps on the abdominal wall: Part II. Bilateral reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:1438–1453. - PubMed