+ 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

Inclusion of mesh in donor-site repair of free TRAM and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps yields rates of abdominal complications comparable to those of DIEP flap reconstruction



Inclusion of mesh in donor-site repair of free TRAM and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps yields rates of abdominal complications comparable to those of DIEP flap reconstruction



Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 126(2): 367-374



Pedicled and free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flaps remain popular for autologous breast reconstruction, but the incidence of abdominal donor-site bulge and hernia is significantly greater when compared with deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction. Mesh repair after muscle harvest, however, may reduce the complication rate to that observed with perforator flaps alone. A retrospective review of all free flap breast reconstructions at the University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center from 2002 to 2007 was performed. Abdominal bulge and hernia were noted for patients undergoing free TRAM and muscle-sparing free TRAM flap reconstructions and were compared with those observed following DIEP flap reconstructions. A total of 275 free TRAM plus muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps and 200 DIEP flaps were performed. Among patients with free and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps, 11.3 percent were found to have postoperative abdominal bulge or hernia. Only 3.5 percent of DIEP flap patients had abdominal complications. Incorporating mesh into the rectus fascia repair significantly reduced the abdominal complications reported to 5.1 percent. Of the 86 free and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps that were bilateral, 12.8 percent had hernias/bulges. Use of mesh with bilateral free and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps reduced the complication rate to 3.7 percent. Incorporating mesh into rectus fascia repair in free and muscle-sparing free TRAM flap cases significantly reduces the rate of postoperative abdominal complications to levels equivalent to those for DIEP flap reconstructions. The authors advocate deciding intraoperatively between DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flap dissections based on ease of dissection and whichever offers optimal safety and flap perfusion. Routine use of mesh in donor-site repair will decrease postoperative abdominal morbidity in unilateral and bilateral cases.

Please choose payment method:






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

Accession: 053795005

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 20679822

DOI: 10.1097/prs.0b013e3181de1b7e


Related references

Comparison of donor-site complications and functional outcomes in free muscle-sparing TRAM flap and free DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 117(3): 737, 2006

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

The 3-hour muscle-sparing free TRAM flap: safe and effective treatment review of 111 consecutive free TRAM flaps in a private practice setting. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 120(1): 27-34, 2007

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

Immediate postoperative complications in DIEP versus free/muscle-sparing TRAM flaps. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 120(6): 1477-1482, 2007

Immediate Postoperative Complications in DIEP versus Free/Muscle-Sparing TRAM Flaps. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 19(3): 281-282, 2008

Clinical and Quantitative Isokinetic Comparison of Abdominal Morbidity and Dynamics following DIEP versus Muscle-Sparing Free TRAM Flap Breast Reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 142(1): 92e-94e, 2018

Clinical and Quantitative Isokinetic Comparison of Abdominal Morbidity and Dynamics following DIEP versus Muscle-Sparing Free TRAM Flap Breast Reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 140(6): 1101-1109, 2017

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

Breast reconstruction with the DIEP flap or the muscle-sparing (MS-2) free TRAM flap: is there a difference?. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 115(2): 436-44; Discussion 445-6, 2005

Perfusion-related complications are similar for DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps harvested on medial or lateral deep inferior epigastric Artery branch perforators for breast reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 128(6): 581e-589e, 2011

A Comparison between DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps in breast reconstruction: a single surgeon's recent experience. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 126(5): 1428-1435, 2010