+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Comparing the donor-site morbidity using DIEP, SIEA or MS-TRAM flaps for breast reconstructive surgery: a meta-analysis



Comparing the donor-site morbidity using DIEP, SIEA or MS-TRAM flaps for breast reconstructive surgery: a meta-analysis



Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery 65(11): 1474-1480



Countless studies have compared the use of autologous tissue for breast reconstruction; however, rates of donor-site morbidity differ greatly. This study examined the donor-site morbidity of superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA), deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) and muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (MS-TRAM) flaps when used for unilateral breast reconstruction. Searches in PubMed and Medline as well as three manual search strategies for English-language articles published from 1 January 1995 to 1 January 2011 resulted in 2154 publications. Four levels of screening identified five studies suitable for the meta-analysis. StatsDirect software was used to perform the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. Only one study reported rates of donor-site morbidity for SIEA flaps. It was therefore impossible to perform any analysis regarding SIEA flaps. Five studies reported rates for both DIEP and MS-TRAM flaps and were used to estimate pooled relative risk (RR) and confidence intervals (CIs) of bulging. There was a 20% reduced risk of bulging when DIEP flaps were used compared to MS-TRAM flaps (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.48-1.35). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the risk of bulging in DIEP flap patients was one-third of MS-TRAM flap patients (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.06-1.36), when rates were reported by clinical examinations. However, when rates were reported by surveys there was no difference in bulge formation between DIEP and MS-TRAM flap patients (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.59-1.79). The adjusted RR of hernia in DIEP flap patients was approximately one-half of MS-TRAM flap patients (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.07-2.63). This analysis demonstrated a clear trend towards a favourable outcome when DIEP flaps were used compared to MS-TRAM flaps.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 036511170

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 22841854

DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2012.07.001


Related references

Comparison of donor-site morbidity of SIEA, DIEP, and muscle-sparing TRAM flaps for breast reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 122(3): 702-709, 2008

Meta-analysis of the safety and factors contributing to complications of MS-TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA flaps for breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 38(4): 681-691, 2014

Meta-analysis of flap perfusion and donor site complications for breast reconstruction using pedicled versus free TRAM and DIEP flaps. Breast 38: 45-51, 2018

Meta-analysis of flap perfusion and donor site complications for breast reconstruction using pedicled versus free TRAM and DIEP flaps. Breast 38: 45-51, 2018

The donor site morbidity of free DIEP flaps and free TRAM flaps for breast reconstruction. British Journal of Plastic Surgery 50(5): 322-330, 1997

Breast reconstruction with free flaps from the abdominal donor site: TRAM, DIEAP, and SIEA flaps. Clinics in Plastic Surgery 34(1): 105-21; Abstract Vii, 2007

Perforator number predicts fat necrosis in a prospective analysis of breast reconstruction with free TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA flaps. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 125(5): 1335-1341, 2010

Perforator number predicts fat necrosis in a prospective analysis of breast reconstruction with free TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA flaps. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 126(6): 2286-8; Author Reply 2288-9, 2010

Update on Breast Reconstruction Using Free TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA Flaps. Seminars in Plastic Surgery 18(2): 97-104, 2004

Internal mammary perforator recipient vessels for breast reconstruction using free TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA flaps. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 120(7): 1769-1773, 2007

Internal mammary perforator recipient vessels for breast reconstruction using free TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA flaps. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 122(1): 315-316, 2008

A prospective study comparing the functional impact of SIEA, DIEP, and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps on the abdominal wall: part I. unilateral reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 126(4): 1142-1153, 2010

A prospective study comparing the functional impact of SIEA, DIEP, and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps on the abdominal wall: Part II. Bilateral reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 126(5): 1438-1453, 2010

Comparison of outcomes and donor-site morbidity in unilateral free TRAM versus DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery 60(11): 1219-1224, 2007

Myosonographic study of abdominal wall dynamics to assess donor site morbidity after microsurgical breast reconstruction with a DIEP or an ms-2 TRAM flap. Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery 69(5): 598-603, 2016