Author:
Smolanka Ivan Ivanovich, ,Galych Sergiy Petrovich,Movchan Oleksii Volodimirovich,Bagmut Irina Yuriivna,Sheremet Michael Ivanovich,Kolisnyk Igor Leonidovich,Bagmut Oleksandr Vasyliovych,Lyashenko Andriy Oleksandrovich,Dosenko Irina Viktorivna,Ivankova Oksana Mykolaivna,Maksymyuk Vitaliy Vasilyevich,Tarabanchuk Volodimir Volodimirovich, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the results of free MS-TRAM and DIEP-flap based on the volume of the transplant and the unique characteristics of blood flow in the tissues. The study included 83 patients, 42 in the MS-TRAM-flap reconstruction group and 41 in the DIEP-flap breast reconstruction group. In the MS-TRAM-flap group, 35 patients received delayed reconstruction, and 7 received one-stage breast reconstruction, including one case of bilateral transplantation. In the DIEP-flap group, 5 patients received one-stage reconstruction, and 36 received delayed reconstruction. Complications associated with the flap tissue were observed in 7 (16.67%) in the MS-TRAM-flap group and 8 (19.51%) cases in the DIEP-flap group. The total level of fat necrosis in MS-TRAM-flap was 7.14% (p=0.033), and in DIEP-flap, it was 9.75% (p=0.039) (2 patients had a substantial amount of fat necrosis, while 2 patients had a modest amount of focal fat necrosis). The number and diameter of perforators (including veins), as well as the transplant volume, are the primary determinants of whether to use a DIEP- or MS-TRAM-flap. DIEP-flap is preferred if there are 1–2 large artery perforators (≥1 mm) and tissue volume of 700–800 grams, while MS-TRAM-flap is used when the tissue volume is significant (>2/3 of standard TRAM-flap).
Publisher
S.C. JURNALUL PENTRU MEDICINA SI VIATA S.R.L