DIEP Donor Site Satisfaction between Patients with and without History of Pregnancy

David Chon-Fok Cheong; Allen Wei-Jiat Wong; Shu-Wei Kao; Shu-Ying Chang; Jung-Ju Huang

doi:10.1055/a-2238-8399

Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery, Table of Contents

J Reconstr Microsurg 2024; 40(07): 504-510
DOI: 10.1055/a-2238-8399

Original Article

DIEP Donor Site Satisfaction between Patients with and without History of Pregnancy

Authors

David Chon-Fok Cheong

¹Division of Reconstructive Microsurgery, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan, Taiwan

²College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
Allen Wei-Jiat Wong

¹Division of Reconstructive Microsurgery, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan, Taiwan

³Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Service, Sengkang General Hospital, Singapore
Shu-Wei Kao

¹Division of Reconstructive Microsurgery, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan, Taiwan
Shu-Ying Chang

²College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan

⁴Division of General Plastic Surgery, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan, Taiwan
Jung-Ju Huang

¹Division of Reconstructive Microsurgery, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan, Taiwan

²College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan

Abstract

Background With the success of free autologous breast reconstruction, the abdominal donor site is now an important consideration, especially in patients of childbearing age. In our institution, there are increasing patients who have successfully undergone the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap despite previous pregnancy. This study aims to answer questions on the effect of the donor site on pregnancy and vice versa.

Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted to identify breast cancer patients who received a free DIEP flap for breast reconstruction from January 2018 to August 2020. Patients were allocated to two groups according to whether they had prior pregnancies with successful deliveries. Demographics, flap-related parameters, surgical outcomes on breast and abdomen, and patient-reported outcome (Breast-Q questionnaire) were analyzed. Patients were excluded if follow-up time was less than 1 year, or if there was incomplete medical records or Breast-Q replies.

Results Ninety-nine of 116 patients had had successful pregnancies with delivery, 17 of them remained nulliparous. No statistically significant differences existed between groups regarding demographic data, flap-related parameters, surgical outcomes on breast and abdomen. Nulliparous patients exhibited significantly lower score in physical well-being in the abdomen domain compared with delivery-experienced patients (62.1 vs. 73.4, p = 0.025). Significantly, nulliparous patients felt more tightness and pulling of the abdominal wall than the delivery-experienced patients (2.9 vs. 3.7; p = 0.05 and 3.5 vs. 4.0; p = 0.04).

Conclusion Free DIEP flap can be transferred safely in nulliparous patients despite a slight increase in abdominal tightness and abdominal pulling. Precise flap design and surgical approaches may help to minimize the abdominal discomfort especially on young, normal body mass index, and nonchildbearing patients.

Keywords

DIEP flap - breast reconstruction - donor site - young breast cancer - Breast-Q

Full Text

References

References
1 Kashyap D, Pal D, Sharma R. et al. Global increase in breast cancer incidence: risk factors and preventive measures. BioMed Res Int 2022; 2022: 9605439
2 Taiwan Cancer Registry Center. Incidence and mortality rates for top 10 cancers in Taiwan. 2023 Accessed September 18, 2023 at: https://twcr.tw/?page_id=1855&lang=en
3 Chen YC, Su SY, Jhuang JR. et al. Forecast of a future leveling of the incidence trends of female breast cancer in Taiwan: an age-period-cohort analysis. Sci Rep 2022; 12 (01) 12481
4 Sopik V. International variation in breast cancer incidence and mortality in young women. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2021; 186 (02) 497-507
5 Chen SC, Lin CW, Lee PF, Chen HL, Ho CC. Anthropometric characteristics in Taiwanese adults: age and gender differences. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18 (14) 7712
6 Santanelli F, Longo B, Cagli B, Pugliese P, Sorotos M, Paolini G. Predictive and protective factors for partial necrosis in DIEP flap breast reconstruction: does nulliparity bias flap viability?. Ann Plast Surg 2015; 74 (01) 47-51
7 Jeong W, Lee S, Kim J. Meta-analysis of flap perfusion and donor site complications for breast reconstruction using pedicled versus free TRAM and DIEP flaps. Breast 2018; 38: 45-51
8 He WY, El Eter L, Yesantharao P. et al. Complications and patient-reported outcomes after TRAM and DIEP flaps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020; 8 (10) e3120
9 Patel KM, Basci D, Nahabedian MY. Multiple pregnancies following deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013; 66 (03) 434-436
10 Alipour S, Eskandari A. Systematic review of effects of pregnancy on breast and abdominal contour after TRAM/DIEP breast reconstruction in breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2015; 152 (01) 9-15
11 Moshrefi S, Kanchwala S, Momeni A. Should planned/desired pregnancy be considered an absolute contraindication to breast reconstruction with free abdominal flaps? A retrospective case series and systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018; 71 (09) 1295-1300
12 Mauch JT, Kozak GM, Rhemtulla IA. et al. Does pregnancy predict incisional hernia repair after abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction? A retrospective review of 890 free flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (05) 909e-916e
13 Fu A, Liu C. Is pregnancy following a TRAM or DIEP flap safe? A critical systematic review and meta-analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2021; 45 (06) 2618-2630
14 Hivelin M, Soprani A, Schaffer N, Hans S, Lantieri L. Minimally invasive laparoscopically dissected deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap: an anatomical feasibility study and a first clinical case. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 141 (01) 33-39
15 Shakir S, Spencer AB, Kozak GM, Nathan SL, Soriano IS, Kanchwala SK. Laparoscopically assisted DIEP flap harvest minimizes fascial incision in autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 146 (03) 265e-275e
16 Shakir S, Spencer AB, Piper M, Kozak GM, Soriano IS, Kanchwala SK. Laparoscopy allows the harvest of the DIEP flap with shorter fascial incisions as compared to endoscopic harvest: a single surgeon retrospective cohort study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2021; 74 (06) 1203-1212
17 Lee MJ, Won J, Song SY. et al. Clinical outcomes following robotic versus conventional DIEP flap in breast reconstruction: a retrospective matched study. Front Oncol 2022; 12: 989231
18 Tsai CY, Kim BS, Kuo WL. et al. Novel port placement in robot-assisted DIEP flap harvest improves visibility and bilateral DIEP access: early controlled cohort study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2023; 152 (04) 590e-595e
19 Nagarkar P, Lakhiani C, Cheng A, Lee M, Teotia S, Saint-Cyr M. No-drain DIEP flap donor-site closure using barbed progressive tension sutures. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016; 4 (04) e672
20 Kim J, Lee KT, Mun GH. Safety of drainless donor closure in DIEP flap-based breast reconstruction: a prospective analysis using ultrasound. J Reconstr Microsurg 2024; 40 (02) 123-131
21 Lakatta AC, Steppe C, Teotia SS, Haddock NT. Reduction in seroma rate following deep inferior epigastric perforator flap with umbilectomy utilizing progressive tension sutures. J Reconstr Microsurg 2024; 40 (02) 118-122
22 Abesamis GM, Chopra S, Vickery K, Deva AK. A comparative trial of incisional negative-pressure wound therapy in abdominoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019; 7 (05) e2141
23 Tran BNN, Johnson AR, Shen C, Lee BT, Lee ES. Closed-incision negative-pressure therapy efficacy in abdominal wall reconstruction in high-risk patients: a meta-analysis. J Surg Res 2019; 241: 63-71
24 Morris MP, Christopher AN, Patel V, Onyekaba G, Broach RB, Fischer JP. Negative pressure wound therapy after abdominal body contouring: a comparative matched analysis of outcomes and cost. Plast Surg (Oakv) 2022; 30 (04) 360-367
25 Hsiao HY, Hsieh WC, Chang FC. et al. The effect of negative pressure on wound healing and regeneration in closed incisions under high tension: evidence from animal studies and clinical experience. J Clin Med 2022; 12 (01) 106
26 Jo T, Jeon DN, Han HH. The PAP flap breast reconstruction: a practical option for slim patients. J Reconstr Microsurg 2022; 38 (01) 27-33
27 Lu J, Zhang KK, Graziano FD, Nelson JA, Allen Jr RJ. Alternative donor sites in autologous breast reconstruction: a clinical practice review of the PAP flap. Gland Surg 2023; 12 (04) 516-526
28 Haddock NT, Lakatta AC, Teotia SS. Bilateral LAP flaps for breast reconstruction: a perforator classification system. Plast Reconstr Surg 2023 . Doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000011002