Small flaps in microsurgical breast reconstruction: Selection between the profunda artery perforator and small deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flaps and associated outcomes and complications

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap is widely used in breast reconstruction and the profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap as alternative. However, the difference between the two flaps in smaller breast reconstruction remains lacking, in particular, the donor site complications. In this case series, the results of small breast reconstruction (≤300 g) using PAP or small DIEP flaps were explored.MethodsUnilateral immediate breast reconstruction using a free PAP flap or small DIEP flap (≤300 g) from 2011 to 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Excluding patients with delayed reconstruction, 28 patients, including 17 PAP flaps and 11 small DIEP flaps were enrolled. Flap characteristics, breast and donor site complications, and revision surgeries were reviewed. BREAST‐Q™ was used for quality‐of‐life assessment.ResultsCompared with a small DIEP flap, a PAP flap was narrow (7.5 ± 1.1 vs. 10.6 ± 0.7 cm, p < .001), short (20.0 ± 2.6 vs. 25.5 ± 1.8 cm, p < .001) and had a shorter pedicle (5.9 ± 1.6 vs. 9.1 ± 1.0 cm, p < .001). There were no significant differences in acute and late complications of wound healing and fat necrosis, but the average number of revisions in the PAP group was significantly higher (1.9 ± 1.3 vs. 0.8 ± 1.4, p = .041). Patient‐reported outcomes using BREAST‐Q™ displayed no significant difference between the two groups.ConclusionThe outcomes of PAP and small DIEP flaps at the breasts and donor sites are satisfactory, despite that a higher tendency of donor site complications in PAP flap and more aesthetic refinement required in the PAP group. The overall outcomes are acceptable.