RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Autologous breast reconstruction is an integral part in the treatment of breast cancer. While computed tomography angiography (CTA) is an established preoperative diagnostic tool for microsurgeons, no study has so far evaluated and compared five different imaging methods and their value for the reconstructive team. In order to determine the feasibility of each of the tools for routine or specialized diagnostic application, the methods' efficiency and informative value were analyzed. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed imaging data of 41 patients used for perforator location and assessment for regional perfusion and vessel patency in patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric perforator flap (DIEP), transverse rectus abdominis muscle flap (TRAM), or transverse myocutaneous gracilis flap (TMG). Five different imaging techniques were used: hand held Doppler (HHD), CT angiography (CTA), macroscopic indocyanine green (ICG) video angiography, microscope-integrated ICG video angiography, and laser Doppler imaging (LDI). RESULTS: CTA proved to be the best tool for preoperative determination of the highly variable anatomy of the abdominal region, whereas HHD showed the same information on perforator localization with some false-positive results. Intraoperative HHD was an excellent tool for dissection and vessel patency judgment. Microscope-integrated ICG was an excellent tool to document the patency of microanastomoses. In our series, macroscopic perfusion measurement with ICG or LDI was only justified in special situations, where information on perfusion of abdominal or mastectomy flaps was required. LDI did not add any additional information. CONCLUSION: Preoperative assessment should be performed by CTA with verification of the perforator location by HHD. Intraoperative HHD and microscope-integrated ICG contribute most toward the evaluation of vessel patency. ICG and LDI should only be used for special indications.
RESUMO
Nipple reconstruction is of importance in achieving the best possible aesthetic outcome after breast reconstruction. Nipple sharing is a common technique; this study focused on the potential morbidity at the donor nipple. Between 2008 and 2012, 26 patients underwent nipple sharing at our institution. The donor nipple was examined before and after the procedure (mean follow-up of 21 months). Sensitivity, projection, diameter, and patient satisfaction were evaluated. The sensitivity in the donor nipple decreased, albeit insignificantly, from 1.2 g/mm2 (0.8-1.6) to 1.8 g/mm2 (0.8-4.8) (p=0.054, n=26). The projection due to graft removal decreased from 8.0 mm (6.8-10.0) to 4.5 mm (4.0-5.0) (p=0.001). Of the patients, 88% were "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" with the sensitivity and 89% with the symmetry between the donor and reconstructed nipple. At least 60% of the patients were "very satisfied" with all aesthetic outcome parameters (projection, appearance, naturalness, color, and shape). All patients would agree to undergo this procedure again, if necessary. Nipple sharing was associated with minimal morbidity at the donor nipple. The postoperative projection was adequate. Regardless of whether simultaneous mastopexy was performed, the loss of sensitivity was minimal and presumably imperceptible to the patient. By using no sutures after graft removal and letting the donor nipple heal spontaneously, scarring was minimized and the natural appearance and good sensitivity of the donor nipple were preserved.