Advanced search
1 file | 3.41 MB Add to list

Comparing the lumbar and SGAP flaps to the DIEP flap using the BREAST-Q

Dries Opsomer (UGent) , Tom Vyncke (UGent) , Michelle Ryx, Filip Stillaert (UGent) , Koenraad Van Landuyt (UGent) and Phillip Blondeel (UGent)
(2020) PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY. 146(3). p.276E-282E
Author
Organization
Abstract
Background: The deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap is the gold standard in autologous breast reconstruction. When the abdomen is not available, alternative donor sites can be found at the buttock, the lumbar region, or the thighs. These flaps are referred to as second-choice flaps. This study compares the superior gluteal artery perforator (SGAP) flap and the lumbar artery perforator (LAP) flap to the DIEP flap using patient-reported outcomes. Methods: A retrospective study was performed reviewing the records of 417 women who underwent a free flap breast reconstruction with either a DIEP, an LAP, or an SGAP flap, between 2006 and 2018. Patients were asked to fill out the BREAST-Q questionnaire, and patient-reported outcomes were analyzed and correlated to the demographic information. Results: The response rate was 54.5 percent, with 50 LAP, 153 DIEP, and 25 SGAP flap patients participating. When questioned about their satisfaction with breasts and satisfaction with outcome, all three procedures were rated similarly high. When comparing the physical well-being of the donor site and appearance of the donor site, LAP flap patients reported significantly lower scores than DIEP and SGAP flap patients. Conclusions: Patients who undergo LAP or SGAP flap breast reconstruction seem similarly satisfied with the appearance and outcome of their free flap breast reconstruction compared with DIEP flap patients. The donor-site morbidity and its impact on the patient's well-being in SGAP and LAP flap patients have been underestimated. Despite more donor-site discomfort, the LAP and SGAP flaps are feasible alternatives whenever the DIEP flap is not possible.
Keywords
QUALITY-OF-LIFE, PERFORATOR FLAP, RECONSTRUCTION, SURGERY

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text (Published version)
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 3.41 MB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Opsomer, Dries, et al. “Comparing the Lumbar and SGAP Flaps to the DIEP Flap Using the BREAST-Q.” PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, vol. 146, no. 3, 2020, pp. 276E-282E, doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000007094.
APA
Opsomer, D., Vyncke, T., Ryx, M., Stillaert, F., Van Landuyt, K., & Blondeel, P. (2020). Comparing the lumbar and SGAP flaps to the DIEP flap using the BREAST-Q. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 146(3), 276E-282E. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000007094
Chicago author-date
Opsomer, Dries, Tom Vyncke, Michelle Ryx, Filip Stillaert, Koenraad Van Landuyt, and Phillip Blondeel. 2020. “Comparing the Lumbar and SGAP Flaps to the DIEP Flap Using the BREAST-Q.” PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY 146 (3): 276E-282E. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000007094.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Opsomer, Dries, Tom Vyncke, Michelle Ryx, Filip Stillaert, Koenraad Van Landuyt, and Phillip Blondeel. 2020. “Comparing the Lumbar and SGAP Flaps to the DIEP Flap Using the BREAST-Q.” PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY 146 (3): 276E-282E. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000007094.
Vancouver
1.
Opsomer D, Vyncke T, Ryx M, Stillaert F, Van Landuyt K, Blondeel P. Comparing the lumbar and SGAP flaps to the DIEP flap using the BREAST-Q. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY. 2020;146(3):276E-282E.
IEEE
[1]
D. Opsomer, T. Vyncke, M. Ryx, F. Stillaert, K. Van Landuyt, and P. Blondeel, “Comparing the lumbar and SGAP flaps to the DIEP flap using the BREAST-Q,” PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, vol. 146, no. 3, pp. 276E-282E, 2020.
@article{8692263,
  abstract     = {{Background: The deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap is the gold standard in autologous breast reconstruction. When the abdomen is not available, alternative donor sites can be found at the buttock, the lumbar region, or the thighs. These flaps are referred to as second-choice flaps. This study compares the superior gluteal artery perforator (SGAP) flap and the lumbar artery perforator (LAP) flap to the DIEP flap using patient-reported outcomes.

Methods: A retrospective study was performed reviewing the records of 417 women who underwent a free flap breast reconstruction with either a DIEP, an LAP, or an SGAP flap, between 2006 and 2018. Patients were asked to fill out the BREAST-Q questionnaire, and patient-reported outcomes were analyzed and correlated to the demographic information.

Results: The response rate was 54.5 percent, with 50 LAP, 153 DIEP, and 25 SGAP flap patients participating. When questioned about their satisfaction with breasts and satisfaction with outcome, all three procedures were rated similarly high. When comparing the physical well-being of the donor site and appearance of the donor site, LAP flap patients reported significantly lower scores than DIEP and SGAP flap patients.

Conclusions: Patients who undergo LAP or SGAP flap breast reconstruction seem similarly satisfied with the appearance and outcome of their free flap breast reconstruction compared with DIEP flap patients. The donor-site morbidity and its impact on the patient's well-being in SGAP and LAP flap patients have been underestimated. Despite more donor-site discomfort, the LAP and SGAP flaps are feasible alternatives whenever the DIEP flap is not possible.}},
  author       = {{Opsomer, Dries and Vyncke, Tom and Ryx, Michelle and Stillaert, Filip and Van Landuyt, Koenraad and Blondeel, Phillip}},
  issn         = {{0032-1052}},
  journal      = {{PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY}},
  keywords     = {{QUALITY-OF-LIFE,PERFORATOR FLAP,RECONSTRUCTION,SURGERY}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  location     = {{Bologna, Italy}},
  number       = {{3}},
  pages        = {{276E--282E}},
  title        = {{Comparing the lumbar and SGAP flaps to the DIEP flap using the BREAST-Q}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000007094}},
  volume       = {{146}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: