Advanced search
1 file | 4.64 MB Add to list

Lumbar flap versus the gold standard : comparison to the DIEP flap

Dries Opsomer (UGent) , Tom Vyncke (UGent) , Bernard Depypere (UGent) , Filip Stillaert (UGent) , Phillip Blondeel (UGent) and Koenraad Van Landuyt (UGent)
(2020) PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY. 145(4). p.706E-714E
Author
Organization
Abstract
Background: The lumbar artery perforator flap is an excellent free flap for breast reconstruction whenever the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is not an option. The main indication is a lack of abdominal bulk, often seen in young BRCA-positive women seeking prophylactic amputation and immediate reconstruction. Methods: Between October of 2010 and July of 2016, a total of 661 free flap breast reconstructions were performed. The authors retrospectively analyzed patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and secondary corrections. Results: Seventy-six lumbar artery perforator flaps were retained and compared with a cohort of 560 DIEP flaps. The average body mass index for lumbar patients was 23.8 kg/m(2), with a mean age at operation of 46.3 years. Average body mass index for DIEP patients was 25.2 kg/m(2), with a mean age at operation of 48.8 years old. Lumbar artery perforator flap weight was 504 g (range, 77 to 1216 g) on average versus 530 g (range, 108 to 1968 g) for the DIEP flaps. The amount of corrective procedures performed was very similar in both cohorts: 13 percent of the lumbar artery perforator and 12 percent of the DIEP patients underwent no procedures, 62 percent in both groups underwent one procedure, and 25 percent versus 27 percent underwent two or more procedures. Lipofilling was performed in 48 percent of lumbar artery perforator flaps compared with 57 percent of the DIEP flaps (p = 0.14). Mean volume injected was 98.0 cc and 125.1 cc for lumbar artery perforator and DIEP flaps, respectively (p = 0.071). Conclusions: The lumbar flap is a good alternative whenever a DIEP flap is not possible. Bilateral autologous reconstruction is possible even in very thin patients, and secondary corrections are comparable to those for the DIEP.
Keywords
ARTERY PERFORATOR FLAP, BREAST RECONSTRUCTION, GRACILIS FLAP, EXPERIENCE

Downloads

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

Citation

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

MLA
Opsomer, Dries, et al. “Lumbar Flap versus the Gold Standard : Comparison to the DIEP Flap.” PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, vol. 145, no. 4, 2020, pp. 706E-714E, doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000006681.
APA
Opsomer, D., Vyncke, T., Depypere, B., Stillaert, F., Blondeel, P., & Van Landuyt, K. (2020). Lumbar flap versus the gold standard : comparison to the DIEP flap. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 145(4), 706E-714E. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006681
Chicago author-date
Opsomer, Dries, Tom Vyncke, Bernard Depypere, Filip Stillaert, Phillip Blondeel, and Koenraad Van Landuyt. 2020. “Lumbar Flap versus the Gold Standard : Comparison to the DIEP Flap.” PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY 145 (4): 706E-714E. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006681.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Opsomer, Dries, Tom Vyncke, Bernard Depypere, Filip Stillaert, Phillip Blondeel, and Koenraad Van Landuyt. 2020. “Lumbar Flap versus the Gold Standard : Comparison to the DIEP Flap.” PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY 145 (4): 706E-714E. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000006681.
Vancouver
1.
Opsomer D, Vyncke T, Depypere B, Stillaert F, Blondeel P, Van Landuyt K. Lumbar flap versus the gold standard : comparison to the DIEP flap. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY. 2020;145(4):706E-714E.
IEEE
[1]
D. Opsomer, T. Vyncke, B. Depypere, F. Stillaert, P. Blondeel, and K. Van Landuyt, “Lumbar flap versus the gold standard : comparison to the DIEP flap,” PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, vol. 145, no. 4, pp. 706E-714E, 2020.
@article{8692266,
  abstract     = {{Background: The lumbar artery perforator flap is an excellent free flap for breast reconstruction whenever the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is not an option. The main indication is a lack of abdominal bulk, often seen in young BRCA-positive women seeking prophylactic amputation and immediate reconstruction.

Methods: Between October of 2010 and July of 2016, a total of 661 free flap breast reconstructions were performed. The authors retrospectively analyzed patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and secondary corrections.

Results: Seventy-six lumbar artery perforator flaps were retained and compared with a cohort of 560 DIEP flaps. The average body mass index for lumbar patients was 23.8 kg/m(2), with a mean age at operation of 46.3 years. Average body mass index for DIEP patients was 25.2 kg/m(2), with a mean age at operation of 48.8 years old. Lumbar artery perforator flap weight was 504 g (range, 77 to 1216 g) on average versus 530 g (range, 108 to 1968 g) for the DIEP flaps. The amount of corrective procedures performed was very similar in both cohorts: 13 percent of the lumbar artery perforator and 12 percent of the DIEP patients underwent no procedures, 62 percent in both groups underwent one procedure, and 25 percent versus 27 percent underwent two or more procedures. Lipofilling was performed in 48 percent of lumbar artery perforator flaps compared with 57 percent of the DIEP flaps (p = 0.14). Mean volume injected was 98.0 cc and 125.1 cc for lumbar artery perforator and DIEP flaps, respectively (p = 0.071).

Conclusions: The lumbar flap is a good alternative whenever a DIEP flap is not possible. Bilateral autologous reconstruction is possible even in very thin patients, and secondary corrections are comparable to those for the DIEP.}},
  author       = {{Opsomer, Dries and Vyncke, Tom and Depypere, Bernard and Stillaert, Filip and Blondeel, Phillip and Van Landuyt, Koenraad}},
  issn         = {{0032-1052}},
  journal      = {{PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY}},
  keywords     = {{ARTERY PERFORATOR FLAP,BREAST RECONSTRUCTION,GRACILIS FLAP,EXPERIENCE}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  location     = {{Helsinki, Finland}},
  number       = {{4}},
  pages        = {{706E--714E}},
  title        = {{Lumbar flap versus the gold standard : comparison to the DIEP flap}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006681}},
  volume       = {{145}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: