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
Review
. 2017 Dec;140(6):1110-1118.
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003831.

Revisiting the Abdominal Donor Site: Introducing a Novel Nomenclature for Autologous Breast Reconstruction

Jason M Weissler  1   2 , Frank P Albino  1   2 , Martin J Carney  1   2 , Liza C Wu  1   2
Affiliations
Review

Revisiting the Abdominal Donor Site: Introducing a Novel Nomenclature for Autologous Breast Reconstruction

Jason M Weissler et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Dec.

Abstract

Background: As abdominally based free flaps for breast reconstruction continue to evolve, significant effort has been invested in minimizing donor-site morbidity. The impact on the donor site remains a prevailing principle for breast reconstruction, and thus must be adequately reflected when classifying what is left behind following flap harvest. Although successful in describing the type of flap harvested, the existing nomenclature falls short of incorporating certain critical variables, such as degree of muscular preservation, fascial involvement, mesh implantation, and segmental nerve anatomy.

Methods: In an effort to expand on Nahabedian's 2002 classification system, this descriptive study revisits and critically reviews the existing donor-site classification system following abdominally based breast reconstruction.

Results: The authors propose a nomenclature system that emphasizes variability in flap harvest technique, degree of muscular violation, fascial resection, mesh implantation, and degree of nerve transection.

Conclusion: With this revised classification system, reconstructive surgeons can begin reporting more clinically relevant and accurate information with regard to donor-site morbidity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Butler PD, Wu LCAbdominal perforator vs. muscle sparing flaps for breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2015;4:212–221.
    1. Nahabedian MY, Momen B, Galdino G, Manson PNBreast reconstruction with the free TRAM or DIEP flap: Patient selection, choice of flap, and outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;110:466–475; discussion 476–477.
    1. Wan DC, Tseng CY, Anderson-Dam J, Dalio AL, Crisera CA, Festekjian JHInclusion of mesh in donor-site repair of free TRAM and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps yields rates of abdominal complications comparable to those of DIEP flap reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:367–374.
    1. Selber JC, Samra F, Bristol M, et al.A head-to-head comparison between the muscle-sparing free TRAM and the SIEA flaps: Is the rate of flap loss worth the gain in abdominal wall function? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:348–355.
    1. Atisha D, Alderman AKA systematic review of abdominal wall function following abdominal flaps for postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2009;63:222–230.