Evolution in Monitoring of Free Flap Autologous Breast Reconstruction after Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Is There a Best Way?
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
BACKGROUND: Free flap monitoring in autologous reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy remains controversial. The authors therefore examined outcomes in nipple-sparing mastectomy with buried free flap reconstruction versus free flap reconstruction incorporating a monitoring skin paddle. METHODS: Autologous free flap reconstructions with nipple-sparing mastectomy performed from 2006 to 2015 were identified. Demographics and operative results were analyzed and compared between buried flaps and those with a skin paddle for monitoring. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-one free flaps for nipple-sparing mastectomy reconstruction were identified: 50 buried flaps and 171 flaps incorporating a skin paddle. The most common flaps used were deep inferior epigastric perforator (64 percent), profunda artery perforator (12.1 percent), and muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps (10.4 percent). Patients undergoing autologous reconstructions with a skin paddle had a significantly greater body mass index (p = 0.006). Mastectomy weight (p = 0.017) and flap weight (p < 0.0001) were significantly greater in flaps incorporating a skin paddle. Comparing outcomes, there were no significant differences in flap failure (2.0 percent versus 2.3 percent; p = 1.000) or percentage of flaps requiring return to the operating room (6.0 percent versus 4.7 percent; p = 0.715) between groups. Buried flaps had an absolute greater mean number of revision procedures per nipple-sparing mastectomy (0.82) compared with the skin paddle group (0.44); however, rates of revision procedures per nipple-sparing mastectomy were statistically equivalent between the groups (p = 0.296). CONCLUSION: Although buried free flap reconstruction in nipple-sparing mastectomy has been shown to be safe and effective, the authors' technique has evolved to favor incorporating a skin paddle, which allows for clinical monitoring and can be removed at the time of secondary revision. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
