Advertisement

Autologous Reconstruction: Free Flaps

  • Hisham Fansa
  • Christoph Heitmann
Chapter

Abstract

DIEP- and ms-TRAM flaps are the workhorse free flaps in autologous breast reconstruction. The first TRAM flaps, transverse rectus abdominis muscle flaps, were cranially based on the rectus abdominis muscle and transposed to reconstruct the breast. Perfusion arises from the superior epigastric artery. The main disadvantage is that the lower abdomen is mainly perfused from the deep inferior epigastric artery and not the superior. The network between both of the arteries lies within the muscle and is very variable. It is not always sufficient to nourish the desired amount of tissue. Harvesting the muscle can result in weakness of herniation of the abdominal wall leading to pain or additional mesh stabilization surgery.

Literature

DIEP-Flaps, ms-TRAM Flaps and SIEA-Flaps

  1. 1.
    Chen L, Hartrampf CR Jr, Bennett GK. Successful pregnancies following TRAM flap surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993;91:69–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eom JS, Kim DY, Kim EK, Lee TJ. The low DIEP flap: an enhancement to the abdominal donor site. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:7e–13e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Figus A, Wade RG, Gorton L, Rubino C, Griffiths MG, Ramakrishnan VV. Venous perforators in DIEAP flaps: an observational anatomical study using duplex ultrasonography. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012;65:1051–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gravvanis A, Tsoutsos D, Papanikolaou G, Diab A, Lambropoulou P, Karakitsos D. Refining perforator selection for deep inferior epigastric perforator flap: the impact of the dominant venous perforator. Microsurgery. 2014;34:169–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mohan AT, Zhu L, Wang Z, Vijayasekaran A, Saint-Cyr M. Techniques and perforator selection in single, dominant DIEP flap breast reconstruction: algorithmic approach to maximize efficiency and safety. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:790–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moon HK, Taylor GI. The vascular anatomy of rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps based on the deep superior epigastric system. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1988;82:815–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Munhoz AM, Pellarin L, Montag E, Filassi JR, Tachibana A, Gebrim H, Gemperli R, Ferreira MC. Superficial Inferior Epigastric Artery (SIEA) free flap using perforator vessels as a recipient site: clinical implications in autologous breast reconstruction. Am J Surg. 2011;202:612–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pülzl P, Schoeller T, Wechselberger G. Respecting the aesthetic unit in autologous breast reconstruction improves the outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117:1685–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sarik JR, Bank J, Wu LC, Serletti JM. Superficial inferior epigastric artery: learning curve versus reality. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:1e–6e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Walle L, Fansa H, Frerichs O. Smartphone-based thermography for perforator localization in microvascular breast reconstruction. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2018;50:111–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Inner Thigh Flaps (IT-Flap)

  1. 11.
    Allen RJ, Haddock NT, Ahn CY, Sadeghi A. Breast reconstruction with the profunda artery perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:16e–23e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 12.
    Arnez ZM, Pogorelec D, Planinsek F, Ahcan U. Breast reconstruction by the free transverse gracilis (TUG) flap. Br J Plast Surg. 2004;57:20–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 13.
    Fansa H, Schirmer S, Warnecke IC, Cervelli A, Frerichs O. The transverse myocutaneous gracilis muscle flap: a fast and reliable method for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:1326–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 14.
    Fansa H, Schirmer S, Cervelli A, Gehl HB. Computed tomographic angiography imaging and clinical implications of internal mammary artery perforator vessels as recipient vessels in autologous breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;71:533–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 15.
    Fattah A, Figus A, Mathur B, Ramakrishnan VV. The transverse myocutaneous gracilis flap: technical refinements. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010;63:305–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 16.
    Hunter JE, Lardi AM, Dower DR, Farhadi J. Evolution from the TUG to PAP flap for breast reconstruction: comparison and refinements of technique. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68:960–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 17.
    Park JE, Alkureishi LW, Song DH. TUGs into VUGs and friendly BUGs: transforming the gracilis territory into the best secondary breast reconstructive option. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:447–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 18.
    Schoeller T, Huemer GM, Wechselberger G. The transverse musculocutaneous gracilis flap for breast reconstruction: guidelines for flap and patient selection. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 19.
    Whitaker IS, Karavias M, Shayan R, et al. The gracilis myocutaneous free flap: a quantitative analysis of the fasciocutaneous blood supply and implications for autologous breast reconstruction. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(5):e36367.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036367. Lin SJ, ed.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 20.
    Yousif NJ, Matloub HS, Kolachalam R, Grunert BK, Sanger JR. The transverse gracilis musculocutaneous flap. Ann Plast Surg. 1992;29:482–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fasciocutaneous Infragluteal Flap (FCI-Flap)

  1. 21.
    Papp C, Windhofer C, Gruber S. Breast reconstruction with the Fasciocutaneous Infragluteal free flap (FCI). Ann Plast Surg. 2007;58:131–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 22.
    Struckmann V, Peek A, Wingenbach O, Harhaus L, Kneser U, Holle G. The free Fasciocutaneous Infragluteal (FCI) flap: outcome and patient satisfaction after 142 breast reconstructions. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69:461–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lymph Node Transplantation

  1. 23.
    Becker C. Autologous lymph node transfers. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2016;32:28–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 24.
    Saaristo AM, Niemi TS, Viitanen TP, Tervala TV, Hartiala P, Suominen EA. Microvascular breast reconstruction and lymph node transfer for postmastectomy lymphedema patients. Ann Surg. 2012;255:468–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Special Indications

    Lateral Thigh Flap

    1. 25.
      Tuinder SMH, Beugels J, Lataster A, de Haan MW, Piatkowski A, Saint-Cyr M, van der Hulst RRWJ, Allen RJ. The lateral thigh perforator (LTP) flap for autologous breast reconstruction: a prospective analysis of 138 flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004072.

    SGAP and IGAP Flaps

    1. 26.
      Feller AM, Richter-Heine I, Rudolf KD. The Superior Gluteal Artery Perforator flap (S-GAP-flap). Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2002;34:257–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    2. 27.
      LoTempio MM, Allen RJ. Breast reconstruction with SGAP and IGAP flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:393–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

    Lumbar Flap

    1. 28.
      Hamdi M, Craggs B, Brussaard C, Seidenstueker K, Hendrickx B, Zeltzer A. Lumbar artery perforator flap: an anatomical study using multidetector computed tomographic scan and surgical pearls for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:343–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hisham Fansa
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Christoph Heitmann
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic SurgeryKlinikum BielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Center for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and Reconstructive Breast SurgeryMunichGermany
  3. 3.Center for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and Reconstructive Breast SurgeryZurichSwitzerland
  4. 4.Practice for Plastic SurgeryMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations