Advertisement

Muscle Flaps

  • Jesse Creed SelberEmail author
  • John C. Pedersen
Chapter

Abstract

Harvest of muscle flaps traditionally requires long incisions that allow access to muscle origin, insertion, and pedicle. Because some muscles such as the latissimus dorsi and rectus abdominis are large, incisions can be anywhere from 20 to 30 cm in length. These donor sites are conspicuously located on the abdomen and back and are the source of morbidity in the form of cosmesis, seroma, and hernia. The robotic interface has supplied the necessary exposure and picture clarity through high-resolution, three-dimensional optics and the necessary precision instrumentation through wristed motion at the instrument tips to accomplish both muscle harvest and pedicle dissection. The robotic approaches that we describe, including the latissimus dorsi muscle and rectus abdominis muscle, are reproducible techniques for accomplishing muscle harvest without significant donor site morbidity. Both approaches take advantage of insufflation, gravity, precision instrumentation, and 3-dimensional imaging with multiple-angle scopes.

Robotic muscle harvest represents a tremendous step forwards in the ongoing quest to minimize donor site morbidity without compromising outcomes in reconstructive surgery.

Keywords

Breast Reconstruction Latissimus Dorsi Donor Site Morbidity Rectus Abdominis Latissimus Dorsi Muscle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Ascherman JA, Seruya M, Bartsich SA (2008) Abdominal wall morbidity following unilateral and bilateral breast reconstruction with pedicled TRAM flaps: an outcomes analysis of 117 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 121:1–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartlett SP, May JW Jr, Yaremchuk MJ (1981) The latissimus dorsi muscle: a fresh cadaver study of the primary neurovascular pedicle. Plast Reconstr Surg 67:631–636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bass LS, Karp NS, Benacquista T et al (1995) Endoscopic harvest of the rectus abdominis free flap: balloon dissection in the fascial plane. Ann Plast Surg 34:274–279; discussion 279–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bostwick J 3rd, Vasconez LO, Jurkiewicz MJ (1978) Breast reconstruction after a radical mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 61:682–693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chandra V, Nehra D, Parent R et al (2010) A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices. Surgery 147:830–839PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chun YS, Sinha I, Turko A et al (2010) Comparison of morbidity, functional outcome, and satisfaction following bilateral TRAM versus bilateral DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 126:1133–1141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fine NA, Orgill DP, Pribaz JJ (1994) Early clinical experience in endoscopic-assisted muscle flap harvest. Ann Plast Surg 33:465–469; discussion 469–472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Germann G, Waag KL, Selle B et al (2006) Extremity salvage with a free musculocutaneous latissimus dorsi flap and free tendon transfer after resection of a large congenital fibro sarcoma in a 15-week-old infant. A case report. Microsurgery 26:429–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greensmith A, Januszkiewicz J, Poole G (2000) Rectus abdominis muscle free flap harvest by laparoscopic sheath-sparing technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:1438–1441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kroll SS, Schusterman MA, Reece GP et al (1995) Abdominal wall strength, bulging, and hernia after TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 96:616–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lim PC, Kang E, Park DH (2010) A comparative detail analysis of the learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in treatment of endometrial cancer: a case-matched controlled study of the first one hundred twenty two patients. Gynecol Oncol 120:413–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin CH, Wei FC, Levin LS et al (1999) Donor-site morbidity comparison between endoscopically assisted and traditional harvest of free latissimus dorsi muscle flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:1070–1077PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maxwell GP, McGibbon BM, Hoopes JE (1979) Vascular considerations in the use of a latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap after a mastectomy with an axillary dissection. Plast Reconstr Surg 64:771–780PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCraw JB, Dibbell DG, Carraway JH (1977) Clinical definition of independent myocutaneous vascular territories. Plast Reconstr Surg 60:341–352PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller MJ, Robb GL (1995) Endoscopic technique for free flap harvesting. Clin Plast Surg 22:755–773PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pomel C, Missana MC, Lasser P (2002) Endoscopic harvesting of the latissimus dorsi flap in breast reconstructive surgery. Feasibility study and review of the literature. Ann Chir 127:337–342 [French]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ramakrishnan VV, Southern S, Villafane O (1997) Endoscopic harvest of the latissimus dorsi muscle using the balloon dissection technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 99:899–903; discussion 904–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ramakrishnan VV, Southern SJ (1997) Endoscopic rectus harvest: a simplified sheath-saving technique. Ann Plast Surg 39:573–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ramirez OM, Ruas E, Dellon AL (1990) “Components separation” method for closure of abdominal-wall defects: an anatomic and clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg 86:519–526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schneider WJ, Hill HL Jr, Brown RG (1977) Latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap for breast reconstruction. Br J Plast Surg 30:277–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Seitz IA, Adler N, Odessey E (2009) Latissimus dorsi/rib intercostal perforator myo-osseocutaneous free flap reconstruction in composite defects of the scalp: case series and review of literature. J Reconstr Microsurg 25:559–567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Suominen S, Asko-Seljavaara S, von Smitten K et al (1996) Sequelae in the abdominal wall after pedicled or free TRAM flap surgery. Ann Plast Surg 36:629–636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tansini I (1906) Sopra il mio muovo processo di amputazione della mammella. Gazetta Medica Italiana 67:141Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plastic Surgery – Unit 1488, Anderson Cancer CenterThe University of Texas, M.D.HoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plastic SurgeryAkron Plastic SurgeonsAkronUSA

Personalised recommendations