The Versatility of the Superficial Circumflex Iliac Artery Perforator Flap: A Single Surgeon's 16-Year Experience for Limb Reconstruction and a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator (SCIP) flap is a versatile option of free tissue transfer for small to large defects. In this study, we examine the advantages of the SCIP flap, its cadaveric anatomy, and clinical subtypes. METHODS: Ten cadavers were dissected and the corresponding pedicles of the SCIP and groin flaps were identified. A retrospective review of 20 clinical cases of free SCIP flap reconstruction was undertaken. The indication for reconstruction, flap dimensions, and survival were analyzed. A systematic literature review was conducted including articles that have previously reported the use of the SCIP flap. RESULTS: The SCIP pedicle was present in all our cadaveric dissections. The starting point of its pedicle ranged from 1.5 to 4.5 cm along the superficial circumflex iliac artery. The median diameter of the perforator and its concomitant vein was 1mm (range 0.8-2 mm). A cutaneous vein (1.3-2.3 mm) could be included in the flap if the concomitant vein was too small. Twenty consecutive patients had free SCIP flaps between 2002 and 2018. The indications were for finger defects (n = 8), thumb reconstruction (n = 1), lower limb compound fractures (n = 3), iatrogenic wounds (n = 2), upper limb large defects (n = 2), and scar contractures (n = 4). Flap dimensions ranged from 2 × 4 cm to 14 × 25cm, and the longest pedicle was 8cm. All flaps survived. The systematic literature review identified 34 previous reports using the SCIP flaps, most of these published by Asian units. CONCLUSION: The SCIP flap is useful for reconstruction throughout the body due to its ease of dissection, thinness, adjustable pedicle length, and flap dimension ranging from tiny to large, as well as the feasibility of raising a compound flap incorporating an adipofascial or vascularized bone component if necessary.This is a level of evidence therapeutic IV study.

Salvage of the failed implant-based breast reconstruction using the Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap: A single centre experience with tertiary breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The longevity and durability of implant-based reconstruction is limited and many patients who develop complications seek alternative reconstruction. Recent studies have shown tertiary reconstruction with autologous tissue to be safe in the short term. But no study has looked in-depth at the motivation for seeking referral and its long-term outcome. METHODS: This was a retrospective study using patient case-notes and a prospectively-collated database. One hundred and fifteen patients underwent tertiary breast reconstruction with a Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator (DIEP) flap between 1998 and 2016. RESULTS: Mean age was 49 (23-67). The predominant initial reconstruction was expander (71%). Twenty nine percent received a definitive reconstruction (implant with acellular dermal matrix or pedicled latissimus dorsi). The proportion of patients who received post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) to their implant was 72%. Thirty four percent underwent surgical salvage prior to referral for autologous tissue and this was significantly higher in the group that did not receive PMRT (29% vs 40, p = 0.04). Predominant motivation for autologous reconstruction was poor cosmesis (62%) and/or grade III/IV capsular contracture (27%). Mean time from implant to DIEP was 4 years 5 months. Ten percent had complications requiring re-operation. Flap loss was 0.7%. Fifty five percent required an additional ipsilateral procedure and 47% required symmetrization. Median follow-up was 20-months (6-months to 7-years). CONCLUSIONS: We present the largest UK series of tertiary breast reconstruction. Tertiary reconstruction is safe with a surgical outcome comparable to delayed autologous reconstruction. Patients with implant complications often had multiple failed attempts at salvage prior to referral. We advocate careful consideration of implants in the setting of PMRT and early referral for autologous tissue once complications become apparent.

Locally Advanced Breast Cancer: Autologous Versus Implant-based Reconstruction.

UNLABELLED: Recent papers and guidelines agree that patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) should be offered breast reconstruction. Yet, the type of reconstruction in this group of patients is still a point of controversy. METHODS: One hundred fourteen patients, treated for LABC from 2007 to 2013, were divided into 3 groups based on the reconstructive option: no reconstruction (NR), implant-based/expander-based reconstruction (IBR), and autologous tissue reconstruction (ATR). We analyzed demographics and compared delay in adjuvant therapy, length of hospitalization, surgical complications, failure of reconstruction, local recurrence, and disease-free survival. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients had NR, 38 had IBR, and 50 had ATR. No significant difference was found in the percentage of patients who had their adjuvant treatment delayed [16% (NR) vs 22% (IBR) vs 14% (ATR)]. Mean length of hospitalization for the NR, IBR, and ATR groups was 2.7, 6, and 7.5 days, respectively. Complication rates requiring readmission were 36% (NR), 42% (IBR), and 32% (ATR). In the IBR group, 37% of implants were removed because of complications. Failure of reconstruction was 37% and 0% for the IBR and ATR groups, respectively. Local recurrence rates in the NR and Reconstruction (groups IBR and ATR combined) groups were 7% and 2%, respectively. Mean survival times in patients were 18 (NR), 10.3 (IBR), and 12.2 (ATR) months. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference was found in the hospital stay length, adjuvant treatment delay, and complication rates between IBR and ATR. High rates of failed reconstruction suggest that the use of implants should be considered very carefully in patients with LABC.