Lumbar Flap versus the Gold Standard: Comparison to the DIEP Flap. Issue 4 (April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Opsomer, Dries; Vyncke, Tom; Depypere, Bernard; Stillaert, Filip; Blondeel, Phillip; Van Landuyt, Koenraad
• Is Part Of: Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Volume 145:Issue 4(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-04
• Subjects: Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; 617.95205
• DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000006681
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0032-1052

Abstract

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.