Abstract

Autologous breast reconstruction remains a versatile option to produce a natural appearing breast after mastectomy. The deep inferior epigastric perforator remains the most commonly used flap choice, but when this donor site is unsuitable or unavailable, the transverse upper gracilis (TUG) or profunda artery perforator (PAP) flaps are popular secondary alternatives. We conduct a meta-analysis to better understand patient outcomes and adverse events in secondary flap selection in breast reconstruction.A systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE and Embase for all articles published on TUG and/or PAP flaps for oncological breast reconstruction in postmastectomy patients. A proportional meta-analysis was conducted to statistically compare outcomes between PAP and TUG flaps.The TUG and PAP flaps were noted to have similar reported rates of success and incidences of hematoma, flap loss, and flap healing (P > 0.05). The TUG flap was noted to have significantly more vascular complications (venous thrombosis, venous congestion, and arterial thrombosis) than the PAP flap (5.0% vs 0.6%, P < 0.01) and significantly greater rates of unplanned reoperations in the acute postoperative period (4.4% vs 1.8%, P = 0.04). Infection, seroma, fat necrosis, donor healing complications, and rates of additional procedures all exhibited high degree of heterogeneity precluding mathematical synthesis of outcomes across studies.Compared with TUG flaps, PAP flaps have fewer vascular complications and fewer unplanned reoperations in the acute postoperative period. There is need for greater homogeneity in reported outcomes between studies to enable for synthesis of other variables important in determining flap success.

View details for DOI 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003226

View details for PubMedID 37227406