Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Plast Surg 2010; 43(02): 166-172
DOI: 10.4103/0970-0358.73430
Original Article
Association of Plastic Surgeons of India

Assessment of the abdominal wall function after pedicled TRAM flap surgery for breast reconstruction: Use of modified mesh repair for the donor defect

Chacko Cyriac
Department of Plastic Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
,
Ramesh Kumar Sharma
Department of Plastic Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
,
Gurpreet Singh
1   Department of General Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
15 January 2020 (online)

Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Background: The pedicled TRAM flap has been a workhorse of autologous breast reconstruction for decades. However, there has been a rising concern about the abdominal wall donor site morbidity with the use of conventional TRAM flap. This has generally been cited as one of the main reasons for resorting to “abdominal wall friendly” techniques. This study has been undertaken to assess the abdominal wall function in patients with pedicled TRAM flap breast reconstruction. The entire width of the muscle and the overlying wide disk of anterior rectus sheath were harvested with the TRAM flap in all our patients and the anterior rectus sheath defect was repaired by a Proline mesh. Materials and Methods: Abdominal wall function was studied in 21 patients who underwent simultaneous primary unipedicled TRAM flap reconstruction after mastectomy for cancer. In all the patients, the abdominal wall defect was repaired using wide sheet of Proline mesh both as inlay and onlay. The assessment tools included straight and rotational curl ups and a subjective questionnaire. The abdominal wall was also examined for any asymmetry, bulge, or hernia. The minimal follow-up was 6 months postoperative. The objective results were compared with normal unoperated volunteers. Results and Conclusions: The harvesting the TRAM flap certainly results in changes to the anterior abdominal wall that can express themselves to a variable degree. A relatively high incidence of asymptomatic asymmetry of the abdomen was seen. There was total absence of hernia in our series even after a mean follow-up period of 15.5 months. A few patients were only able to partially initiate the sit up movement and suffered an important loss of strength. In most patients, synergists took over the functional movement but as the load increased, flexion and rotation performances decreased. The lack of correlation between exercise tests and the results of the questionnaire suggests that this statistically significant impairment was functionally not important. The patients encountered little or no difficulty in theis day-to-day activities. Our modification of use of a wide mesh as inlay and onlay repair minimizes the donor site morbidity. This also avoids maneuvers meant for primary closure of the rectus sheath defects, which can result in distortion of umbilicus. Therefore, in conclusion, the unipedicled TRAM flap should be regarded as a valuable option in breast reconstruction provided careful repair of the abdominal wall defect is undertaken using Proline mesh.

KEY WORDS

Abdominal wall function - patient questionnaire - pedicled TRAM flap breast reconstruction - straight and lateral curl ups
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Hartrampf CR, Scheflan M, Black PW. Breast reconstruction with a transverse abdominal island flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1982;69:216-25.
  • 2 Reece GP, Kroll SS. Abdominal wall complications: Prevention and treatment. Clin Plast Surg 1998;25:235-49.
  • 3 Lacote M, Chevalier AM. Clinical evaluation of muscle function. 2nd ed. : Churchill Livingstone Edinburugh, New York; 1987. p. 273-316.
  • 4 Eberlein TJ, Crespo LD, Smith BL, Hergrueter CA, Douville L, Eriksson E. Prospective evaluation of immediate reconstruction after mastectomy. Ann Surg 1993;218:29-36.
  • 5 Grotting JC. Immediate breast reconstruction using the free TRAM flap. Clin Plast Surg 1994;21:207-21.
  • 6 Elliott LF, Hartrampf CR. Breast reconstruction: Progress in the past decade. World J Surg 1990;14:763-75.
  • 7 Vasconez HC, Holley DT. Use of the TRAM and latissimus dorsi flaps in autogenous breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 1995;22:153-66.
  • 8 Alderman AK, Wilkins EG, Lowery JC, Kim M, Davis JA. Determinants of patient satisfaction in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;106:769-76.
  • 9 Brandberg Y, Malm M, Blomqvist L. A prospective and randomized study, “SVEA,” comparing effects of three methods for delayed breast reconstruction on quality of life, patient-defined problem areas of life, and cosmetic result. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;105:66-74.
  • 10 Kroll SS, Baldwin B. A comparison of outcomes using three different methods of breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1992;90:455-62.
  • 11 Kroll SS, Marchi M. Comparison of strategies for preventing abdominal-wall weakness after TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1992;89:1045-51.
  • 12 Lejour M, Dome M. Abdominal wall function after rectus abdominis transfer. Plast Reconstr Surg 1991;87:1054-68.
  • 13 Suominen S, Asko-Seljavaara S, Kinnunen J, Sainio P, Alaranta H. Abdominal wall competence after free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap harvest: A prospective study. Ann Plast Surg 1997;39:229-34.
  • 14 Kind GM, Rademaker AW, Mustoe TA. Abdominal-wall recovery following TRAM flap: A functional outcome study. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997;99:417-28.
  • 15 Dulin WA, Avila RA, Verheyden CN, Grossman L. Evaluation of abdominal wall strength after TRAM flap surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;113:1662-5.
  • 16 Blondeel N, Boeckx WD, Vanderstraeten GG, Lysens R, Van Landuyt K, Tonnard P, et al. The fate of the oblique abdominal muscles after free TRAM flap surgery. Br J Plast Surg 1997;50:315-21.
  • 17 Hartrampf CR Jr, Bennett GK. Autogenous tissue reconstruction in the mastectomy patient. A critical review of 300 patients. Ann Surg 1987;205:508-19.
  • 18 Moon HK, Taylor GI. The vascular anatomy of the rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps based on the deep superior epigastric system. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988;82:815-31.
  • 19 Scheflan M, Dinner MI. The transverse abdominal island flap: Indications, contraindication, results and complications. Ann Plast Surg 1983;10:24-35.
  • 20 Shestak KC. Breast reconstruction with a pedicled TRAM flap. Clin Plast Surg 1998;25:167-82.
  • 21 Rickard RF, Hudson DA. Influence of vascular delay on abdominal wall complications in unipedicled TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2003;50:126-31.
  • 22 Slavin SA, Goldwyn RM. The midabdominal rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap: Review of 236 flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988;81:189-99.
  • 23 Nahai F. Discussion. Comparison of strategies for preventing abdominal-wall weakness after TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1992;89:1052-3.
  • 24 Drever JM, Hodson-Walker N. Closure of the donor defect for breast reconstruction with rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 1985;76:558-65.
  • 25 Zienowicz R, May J Jr. Hernia prevention and aesthetic contouring of the abdomen following TRAM flap breast reconstruction by the use of polypropylene mesh. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995;96:1346-50.
  • 26 Hartrampf CR. Discussion. Closure of the donor defect for breast reconstruction with rectus abdominis myocutaneous flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 1985;76:563-5.
  • 27 Schusterman MA, Kroll SS, Weldon ME. Immediate breast reconstruction: Why the free TRAM over the conventional TRAM flap? Plast Reconstr Surg 1992;90:255-61.
  • 28 Grotting JC, Urist MM, Maddox WA, Vasconez LO. Conventional TRAM flap versus free microsurgical TRAM flap for immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1989;83:828-41.
  • 29 Schusterman MA, Kroll SS, Miller MJ, Reece GP, Baldwin BJ, Robb GL, et al. The free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap for breast reconstruction: One center's experience with 211 consecutive cases. Ann Plast Surg 1994;32:234-41.
  • 30 Banic A, Boeckx W, Greulich M, Guelickx P, Marchi A, Rigotti G, et al. Late results of breast reconstruction with free TRAM flaps: A prospective multicentric study. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995;95:1195-204.
  • 31 Alderman AK, Wilkins E, Kuzon WM Jr. A two-year prospective analysis of trunk function in TRAM breast reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;117:2131-8.
  • 32 Arnez ZM, Bajec J, Bardsley AF, Scamp T, Webster MH. Experience with 50 free TRAM flap breast reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg 1991;87:470-8.
  • 33 Shrier I, Feldman D, Klvana J, Rossignol M, Abenhaim L. Comparison between tests of fatigue and force for trunk flexion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:1373-8.
  • 34 Kroll SS. Fat necrosis in free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous and deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;106:576-83.
  • 35 Keller A. The deep inferior epigastric perforator free flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2001;46:474-9.