Implications of abnormal abdominal wall computed tomographic angiography findings on postmastectomy free flap breast reconstruction

Background Preoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the abdominal wall vessels is used when planning free flap breast reconstruction (FFBR) because it provides a surgical road map which facilitates flap harvest. However, there are few reports on the effect of abnormal findings on the operative plan.

Methods We conducted a retrospective study of all FFBRs performed at a tertiary referral center over a 6-year period (November 2011 to June 2017). One consultant radiologist reported on the findings. Details on patient demographics, CTA reports, and intraoperative details were collected.

Results Two hundred patients received preoperative CTAs. Fourteen percent of patients (n=28) had abnormal findings. Of these findings, 18% were vascular anomalies; 36% tumorrelated and 46% were “miscellaneous.” In four patients, findings subsequently prevented surgery; they comprised a mesenteric artery aneurysm, absent deep inferior epigastric (DIE) vessels, bilateral occluded DIE arteries, and significant bone metastases. Another patient had no suitable vessels for a free flap and the surgical plan converted to a pedicled transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap. The remaining incidental findings had no impact on the surgical plan or appropriateness of FFBR. More than one in 10 of those with abnormal findings went on to have further imaging before their operation.

Conclusions CTA in FFBR can have a wider impact than facilitating surgical planning and reducing operative times. Incidental findings can influence the surgical plan, and in some instances, avoid doomed-to-fail and unsafe surgery. It is therefore important that these scans are reported by an experienced radiologist.

Keywords

Incidental findings - Computed tomography angiography - Free tissue flaps - Abdominal wall - Epigastric arteries

This article was presented as a poster at the 53rd Congress of the European Society for Surgical Research, on May 30–June 2, 2018, in Madrid, Spain.

The authors would like to thank Mr. Amer Durrani, Consultant Plastic Surgeon, who introduced the use of preoperative computed tomography angiography for free flap breast reconstruction to Addenbrooke’s, Cambridge University Hospital in 2010.

Publication History

Received: 21 May 2019

Accepted: 28 January 2020

Article published online:
22 May 2022

• REFERENCES

• 1 Egeberg A, Rasmussen MK, Sorensen JA. Comparing the donor-site morbidity using DIEP, SIEA or MS-TRAM flaps for breast reconstructive surgery: a meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2012; 65: 1474-80
• 2 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
• 3 Alonso-Burgos A, Garcia-Tutor E, Bastarrika G. et al. Preoperative planning of deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap reconstruction with multislice-CT angiography: imaging findings and initial experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2006; 59: 585-93
• 4 Suffee T, Pigneur F, Rahmouni A. et al. Best choice of perforator vessel in autologous breast reconstruction: virtual reality navigation vs radiologist analysis. A prospective study. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2015; 49: 333-8
• 5 Ngaage LM, Hamed R, Oni G. et al. The role of CT angiography in assessing deep inferior epigastric perforator flap patency in patients with pre-existing abdominal scars. J Surg Res 2019; 235: 58-65
• 6 Masia J, Kosutic D, Clavero JA. et al. Preoperative computed tomographic angiogram for deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2010; 26: 21-8
• 7 Fitzgerald O’Connor E, Rozen WM, Chowdhry M. et al. Preoperative computed tomography angiography for planning DIEP flap breast reconstruction reduces operative time and overall complications. Gland Surg 2016; 5: 93-8
• 8 Ngaage LM, Oni G, Di Pace B. et al. The effect of CT angiography and venous couplers on surgery duration in microvascular breast reconstruction: a single operator’s experience. Gland Surg 2018; 7: 440-8
• 9 Nakamura N, Tsunoda H, Takahashi O. et al. Frequency and clinical significance of previously undetected incidental findings detected on computed tomography simulation scans for breast cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 84: 602-5
• 10 Lumbreras B, Donat L, Hernandez-Aguado I. Incidental findings in imaging diagnostic tests: a systematic review. Br J Radiol 2010; 83: 276-89
• 11 Lumbreras B, Gonzalez-Alvarez I, Gomez-Saez N. et al. Management of patients with incidental findings in imaging tests: a large prospective single-center study. Clin Imaging 2014; 38: 249-54
• 12 See MS, Pacifico MD, Harley OJ. et al. Incidence of ‘Incidentalomas’ in over 100 consecutive CT angiograms for preoperative DIEP flap planning. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63: 106-10
• 13 Ho OA, Bagher S, Jaskolka J. et al. Incidentalomas associated with abdominal and pelvic CT angiograms for abdominal-based breast free flap reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016; 69: e97-102
• 14 Hughes JM, Smith JR, Jones L. et al. Incidental findings in CT angiograms for free DIEP flap breast reconstruction: do they change our management?. Eur J Surg Oncol 2016; 42: 59-63
• 15 Tevlin R, Borrelli MR, Nguyen D. et al. Preoperative computed tomography angiography in autologous breast reconstruction-incidence and impact of incidentalomas. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018; 6: e2019
• 16 Paluska TR, Sise MJ, Sack DI. et al. Incidental CT findings in trauma patients: incidence and implications for care of the injured. J Trauma 2007; 62: 157-61
• 17 Sergesketter AR, Pyfer BJ, Phillips BT. et al. Check the record: remote CT scans for breast flap perforator mapping. J Reconstr Microsurg 2018; 34: 485-91
• 18 Rosson GD, Williams CG, Fishman EK. et al. 3D CT angiography of abdominal wall vascular perforators to plan DIEAP flaps. Microsurgery 2007; 27: 641-6
• 19 Gopie JP, Timman R, Hilhorst MT. et al. The short-term psychological impact of complications after breast reconstruction. Psychooncology 2013; 22: 290-8
• 20 Fischer JP, Wes AM, Nelson JA. et al. Propensity-matched, longitudinal outcomes analysis of complications and cost: comparing abdominal free flaps and implant-based breast reconstruction. J Am Coll Surg 2014; 219: 303-12
• 21 Ding A, Eisenberg JD, Pandharipande PV. The economic burden of incidentally detected findings. Radiol Clin North Am 2011; 49: 257-65
• 22 Bleicher RJ, Ruth K, Sigurdson ER. et al. Time to surgery and breast cancer survival in the United States. JAMA Oncol 2016; 2: 330-9
• 23 Agarwal S, Talia J, Liu PS. et al. Determining the cost of incidental findings for patients undergoing preoperative planning for abdominally based perforator free flap breast reconstruction with computed tomographic angiography. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138: 804e-810e
• 24 Woolen S, Kazerooni EA, Wall A. et al. Waiting for radiology test results: patient expectations and emotional disutility. J Am Coll Radiol 2018; 15: 274-81
• 25 Munn Z, Jordan Z. The patient experience of high technology medical imaging: a systematic review of the qualitative evidence. Radiography 2011; 17: 323-31