The Conjoined TUGPAP Flap for Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Illustrative Anatomy
Background:. Although abdominally based flaps continue to be the gold standard for autologous breast reconstruction, alternative donor sites are necessary when the abdominal region is unavailable or inadequate for flap harvest. In this case, thigh-based flaps, such as the profunda artery perforator...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Wolters Kluwer
2021-04-01
|
Series: | Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open |
Online Access: | http://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003512 |
id |
doaj-7f12d4acee954afc8ecfc46669322b34 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-7f12d4acee954afc8ecfc46669322b342021-04-26T05:12:48ZengWolters KluwerPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open2169-75742021-04-0194e351210.1097/GOX.0000000000003512202104000-00023The Conjoined TUGPAP Flap for Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Illustrative AnatomyAneesh Karir, MD0Michael J. Stein, MD, FRCSC1Jing Zhang, MD, PhD, FRCSC2From the * Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada† The Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.† The Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Background:. Although abdominally based flaps continue to be the gold standard for autologous breast reconstruction, alternative donor sites are necessary when the abdominal region is unavailable or inadequate for flap harvest. In this case, thigh-based flaps, such as the profunda artery perforator (PAP), transverse upper gracilis (TUG), or newly described TUGPAP, are thought to be reliable with low morbidity and satisfactory cosmesis. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of breast reconstruction with PAP, TUG, or TUGPAP, and present anatomy and surgical techniques through illustrative examples. Methods:. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Articles were included if they used a PAP, TUG, or TUGPAP flap for oncologic, traumatic, or congenital breast reconstruction in patients 18 years or older. Results:. Forty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Seven hundred five patients underwent 906 breast reconstructions with 1037 flaps (755 TUG, 230 PAP, and 52 TUGPAP). Mean patient age was 45.9 years. The mean flap weight for TUG, PAP, and TUGPAP flaps were 323.4, 346.9, and 437.0 g, respectively. The most common recipient vessel was the internal mammary artery in 821 flaps. The overall flap survival rate was 97.2% (1008/1037). TUG flaps had a significantly higher recipient and donor complication rate compared with both PAP (recipient: 18.1% versus 7.8%, P = 0.0001; donor: 25.8% versus 7.0%, P < 0.00001) and TUGPAP flaps (recipient: 18.1% versus 2.0%, P < 0.001; donor: 25.8% versus 7.7%, P < 0.01). Conclusion:. The TUGPAP flap is a safe and effective alternative for autologous breast reconstruction when the abdominal donor site is unavailable.http://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003512 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Aneesh Karir, MD Michael J. Stein, MD, FRCSC Jing Zhang, MD, PhD, FRCSC |
spellingShingle |
Aneesh Karir, MD Michael J. Stein, MD, FRCSC Jing Zhang, MD, PhD, FRCSC The Conjoined TUGPAP Flap for Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Illustrative Anatomy Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open |
author_facet |
Aneesh Karir, MD Michael J. Stein, MD, FRCSC Jing Zhang, MD, PhD, FRCSC |
author_sort |
Aneesh Karir, MD |
title |
The Conjoined TUGPAP Flap for Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Illustrative Anatomy |
title_short |
The Conjoined TUGPAP Flap for Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Illustrative Anatomy |
title_full |
The Conjoined TUGPAP Flap for Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Illustrative Anatomy |
title_fullStr |
The Conjoined TUGPAP Flap for Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Illustrative Anatomy |
title_full_unstemmed |
The Conjoined TUGPAP Flap for Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Illustrative Anatomy |
title_sort |
conjoined tugpap flap for breast reconstruction: systematic review and illustrative anatomy |
publisher |
Wolters Kluwer |
series |
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open |
issn |
2169-7574 |
publishDate |
2021-04-01 |
description |
Background:. Although abdominally based flaps continue to be the gold standard for autologous breast reconstruction, alternative donor sites are necessary when the abdominal region is unavailable or inadequate for flap harvest. In this case, thigh-based flaps, such as the profunda artery perforator (PAP), transverse upper gracilis (TUG), or newly described TUGPAP, are thought to be reliable with low morbidity and satisfactory cosmesis. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of breast reconstruction with PAP, TUG, or TUGPAP, and present anatomy and surgical techniques through illustrative examples.
Methods:. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Articles were included if they used a PAP, TUG, or TUGPAP flap for oncologic, traumatic, or congenital breast reconstruction in patients 18 years or older.
Results:. Forty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Seven hundred five patients underwent 906 breast reconstructions with 1037 flaps (755 TUG, 230 PAP, and 52 TUGPAP). Mean patient age was 45.9 years. The mean flap weight for TUG, PAP, and TUGPAP flaps were 323.4, 346.9, and 437.0 g, respectively. The most common recipient vessel was the internal mammary artery in 821 flaps. The overall flap survival rate was 97.2% (1008/1037). TUG flaps had a significantly higher recipient and donor complication rate compared with both PAP (recipient: 18.1% versus 7.8%, P = 0.0001; donor: 25.8% versus 7.0%, P < 0.00001) and TUGPAP flaps (recipient: 18.1% versus 2.0%, P < 0.001; donor: 25.8% versus 7.7%, P < 0.01).
Conclusion:. The TUGPAP flap is a safe and effective alternative for autologous breast reconstruction when the abdominal donor site is unavailable. |
url |
http://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003512 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT aneeshkarirmd theconjoinedtugpapflapforbreastreconstructionsystematicreviewandillustrativeanatomy AT michaeljsteinmdfrcsc theconjoinedtugpapflapforbreastreconstructionsystematicreviewandillustrativeanatomy AT jingzhangmdphdfrcsc theconjoinedtugpapflapforbreastreconstructionsystematicreviewandillustrativeanatomy AT aneeshkarirmd conjoinedtugpapflapforbreastreconstructionsystematicreviewandillustrativeanatomy AT michaeljsteinmdfrcsc conjoinedtugpapflapforbreastreconstructionsystematicreviewandillustrativeanatomy AT jingzhangmdphdfrcsc conjoinedtugpapflapforbreastreconstructionsystematicreviewandillustrativeanatomy |
_version_ |
1721508901688442880 |