Comparison of breast reconstruction using ipsilateral and contralateral pedicle transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps

Abstract

Aim: Breast reconstruction has several beneficial effects on psychosocial well-being and quality of life. The ultimate goal has always been to create the most natural breast mound. Thus in many centers, the unilateral pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap remains the most common technique for breast reconstruction. Our objective was to retrospectively compare the outcomes of ipsilateral and contralateral pedicle TRAM flaps.

Methods: The total of 110 patients underwent unilateral breast reconstruction with pedicle TRAM flap at Cancer Institute of Tehran University of Medical Science from January 1996 to June 2011. Premorbid risk factors, postoperative outcomes and demographic data were assessed. The analysis of the recordings was done by SPSS 20.

Results: Out of 110 patients who were included in the study, 87 had ipsilateral and 23 contralateral pedicle TRAM flaps. The incidence of flap complications that did not require surgical intervention was 19.7% in ipsilateral and 30.4% in contralateral pedicle TRAM flap. The incidence of flap loss requiring revision was significantly higher in contralateral group (P = 0.001). Major complications were noted in 11.5% of the ipsilateral pedicle TRAM patients and 26.1% of the contralateral group (P < 0.001). Minor complications were noted in 17.2% of the ipsilateral pedicle TRAM patients and in 34.8% of the contralateral group (P < 0.001). Total early hospital stay was longer in contralateral pedicle TRAM flaps (7.66 days vs. 10.68 days, P = 0.83). Higher complications were encountered in contralateral pedicle TRAM flaps compared to ipsilateral pedicle TRAM patients (39.1% vs. 19.5%, P = 0.001). The type of pedicled TRAM flap (ipsilateral vs. contralateral), had significant effect on complications (odds ratio = 0.007, P = 0.002) while other variables had no significant effect on the incidence of complications.

Conclusion: This study indicates that the overall outcome and mid-term morbidity-free survivals of ipsilateral pedicle TRAM flap breast reconstruction are statistically superior to contralateral pedicle TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Both of these procedures are reasonably feasible and safe. These findings lead us to discourage the use of contralateral pedicle TRAM flap when an ipsilateral option is feasible.

Keywords

Breast reconstruction / transvers rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap / unilateral pedicle TRAM flap / ipsilateral pedicle TRAM flap

References

[1] Eltahir Y,Dreise MM,Jansen L,de Bock GH.Quality-of-life outcomes between mastectomy alone and breast reconstruction: comparison of patient-reported BREAST-Q and other health-related quality-of-life measures..Plast Reconstr Surg2013;132:e201-9

[2] Hu ES,Waljee JF,Hawley ST,Alderman AK.Patient-reported aesthetic satisfaction with breast reconstruction during the long-term survivorship period..Plast Reconstr Surg2009;124:1-8

[3] Grotting JC,Arkoulakis NS.The art and science of autologous breast reconstruction..Breast J2003;9:350-60

[4] Omranipour R,Mohagheghi MA,Abasahl A.Outcomes of breast reconstruction with pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (tram) flap at cancer institute, a retrospective study of 10 years of experience..Acta Medica Iranica2008;46:218-24

[5] Serletti JM.Breast reconstruction with the TRAM flap: pedicled and free..J Surg Oncol2006;94:532-7

[6] Knox AD,Leung L,Lennox PA,Macadam SA.Comparison of outcomes following autologous breast reconstruction using the DIEP and pedicled TRAM flaps: a 12-year clinical retrospective study and literature review..Plast Reconstr Surg2016;138:16-28

[7] Olding M,Barrett WL.Preferential use of the ipsilateral pedicle in TRAM flap breast reconstruction..Ann Plast Surg1998;40:349-53

[8] Clugston PA,Azurin D,Maxwell GP.Ipsilateral pedicled TRAM flaps: the safer alternative?.Plast Reconstr Surg2000;105:77-82

[9] Janiga TA,Lytle IF,Alderman AK.Ipsilateral pedicle TRAM flaps for breast reconstruction: are they as safe as contralateral techniques?.J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg2010;63:322-6

[10] Ozkan A,Aydin H,Tümerdem B,Asoğlu O.The use of the ipsilateral versus contralateral pedicle and vertical versus horizontal flap inset models in TRAM flap breast reconstruction: the aesthetic outcome..Aesthetic Plast Surg2002;26:451-6

[11] Fathi M,Fathi HR.Breast reconstruction using tram flap: prospective outcome and complications..MJIRI2006;20:74-81

[12] Clugston PA,Azurin D,Maxwell GP.Ipsilateral pedicled TRAM flaps: the safer alternative?.Plast Reconstr Surg2000;105:77-82

[13] Ascherman JA,Bartsich SA.Abdominal wall morbidity following unilateral and bilateral breast reconstruction with pedicled TRAM flaps: an outcomes analysis of 117 consecutive patients..Plast Reconstr Surg2008;121:1-8

[14] Tribondeau P.Breast reconstruction with pedicled TRAM flap (a retrospective study of 115 consecutive cases)..Ann Chir Plast Esthet2008;53:309-17(in French)

[15] Shestak KC.Technical tips for avoiding complications in TRAM flap breast reconstruction. In: Reoperative Plastic Surgery of the Breast.2006;PALippincott Williams & Wilkins302-39

[16] Zenn MR.Spear SL.TRAM flap reconstruction: the single pedicle, whole muscle technique..Surgery of the Breast: Principles and Art.2006;PALippincott Williams & Wilkins732-40

[17] Alipour S,Akrami R.Obesity should not prevent from TRAM flap breast reconstruction in developing countries..Indian J Surg2015;77:341-4 PMCID:PMC4692909