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
. 2021 Mar 2;10(5):1016.
doi: 10.3390/jcm10051016.

Overall Complication Rates of DIEP Flap Breast Reconstructions in Germany-A Multi-Center Analysis Based on the DGPRÄC Prospective National Online Registry for Microsurgical Breast Reconstructions

Affiliations

Overall Complication Rates of DIEP Flap Breast Reconstructions in Germany-A Multi-Center Analysis Based on the DGPRÄC Prospective National Online Registry for Microsurgical Breast Reconstructions

Paul I Heidekrueger et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

While autologous breast reconstruction has gained momentum over recent years, there is limited data on the structure and quality of care of microsurgical breast reconstruction in Germany. Using the breast reconstruction database established by the German Society of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (DGPRÄC), the presented study investigated the overall outcomes of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstructions in Germany. Data of 3926 patients and 4577 DIEP flaps performed by 22 centers were included in this study. Demographics, patient characteristics, perioperative details and postoperative outcomes were accounted for. Centers performing < Ø 40 (low-volume (LV)) vs. ≥ Ø 40 (high-volume (HV)) annual DIEP flaps were analyzed separately. Overall, total and partial flap loss rates were as low as 2.0% and 1.1% respectively, and emergent vascular revision surgery was performed in 4.3% of cases. Revision surgery due to wound complications was conducted in 8.3% of all cases. Mean operative time and length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the HV group (LV: 385.82 min vs. HV: 287.14 min; LV: 9.04 (18.87) days vs. HV: 8.21 (5.04) days; both p < 0.05). The outcome and complication rates deduced from the national registry underline the high standard of microsurgical breast reconstruction on a national level in Germany.

Keywords: breast cancer; breast reconstruction; deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap; microsurgery; plastic surgery; reconstructive surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Increasing trend of immediate breast reconstruction performed between 2011–2018, pooled across all 22 centers (p < 0.001 between years and type of reconstruction, immediate vs. delayed breast reconstruction).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Holmström H. The Free Abdominoplasty Flap and Its Use in Breast Reconstruction: An Experimental Study and Clinical Case Report. Scand. J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1979;13:423–427. doi: 10.3109/02844317909013092. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pollhammer M.S., Duscher D., Schmidt M., Huemer G.M. Recent advances in microvascular autologous breast reconstruc-tion after ablative tumor surgery. World J. Clin. Oncol. 2016;7:114–121. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v7.i1.114. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cai A., Suckau J., Arkudas A., Beier J.P., Momeni A., Horch R.E. Autologous Breast Reconstruction with Transverse Rectus Abdominis Musculocutaneous (TRAM) or Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator (DIEP) Flaps: An Analysis of the 100 Most Cited Articles. Med. Sci. Monit. 2019;25:3520–3536. doi: 10.12659/MSM.914665. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Koshima I., Soeda S. Inferior epigastric artery skin flaps without rectus abdominis muscle. Br. J. Plast. Surg. 1989;42:645–648. doi: 10.1016/0007-1226(89)90075-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nahabedian M.Y., Tsangaris T., Momen B. Breast reconstruction with the DIEP flap or the muscle-sparing (MS-2) free TRAM flap: Is there a difference? Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2005;115:436–444. doi: 10.1097/01.PRS.0000149404.57087.8E. discussion 45–46. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources