Comparison of morbidity, functional outcome, and satisfaction following bilateral TRAM versus bilateral DIEP flap breast reconstruction.
BACKGROUND
The potential for donor-site morbidity associated with bilateral pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap breast reconstruction has led to the popularization of deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction. This study compares postoperative morbidity and satisfaction following bilateral pedicled TRAM and DIEP flap reconstruction.


METHODS
One hundred five women with bilateral pedicled TRAM flaps were compared with 58 women with bilateral DIEP flap reconstruction. Medical records were reviewed for complications and demographic data. Postoperative follow-up data were obtained through Short Form-36, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast, Michigan Breast Satisfaction, and Qualitative Assessment of Back Pain surveys.


RESULTS
The mean follow-up interval was 6.2 years in the bilateral TRAM group and 2.3 years in the bilateral DIEP group (p < 0.001). Demographic data were otherwise similar. Abdominal hernias occurred in three TRAM patients (2.9 percent) and in no DIEP patients, whereas abdominal bulges occurred in three TRAM patients (2.9 percent) and four DIEP patients (6.9 percent); these differences were not statistically significant. Fat necrosis occurred less frequently in the TRAM group (p = 0.04). Postoperative survey results revealed no significant difference in patient satisfaction, incidence of back pain, or physical function. The TRAM group scored higher in the Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36 subjective energy category (p = 0.01) and mean Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast score (p = 0.01).


CONCLUSIONS
This study suggests no significant differences in donor-site morbidity, survey-based functional outcome, or patient satisfaction between bilateral TRAM and DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Although perforator flaps represent an important technological advancement, bilateral pedicled TRAM flap reconstruction still represents a good option for autologous breast reconstruction.
Chun
Yoon S
YS
Boston, Mass. From the Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and the Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
Sinha
Indranil
I
Turko
Arthur
A
Yueh
Janet H
JH
Lipsitz
Stuart
S
Pribaz
Julian J
JJ
Lee
Bernard T
BT
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000601:surgery; D015331:Cohort Studies; D019074:Epigastric Arteries / Q000601:surgery; D005218:Fat Necrosis / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000209:etiology; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006084:Graft Rejection; D006085:Graft Survival; D006801:Humans; D017116:Low Back Pain / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000209:etiology; D016462:Mammaplasty / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D008875:Middle Aged; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000503:physiopathology; D017568:Rectus Abdominis / Q000098:blood supply / Q000637:transplantation*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D018570:Risk Assessment; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D013524:Surgical Flaps / Q000098:blood supply*; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome