Annales de chirurgie plastique et esthetique · 2017
[Profunda artery perforator flap: Reliable secondary option for breast reconstruction?].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fosseprez P, Gerdom A, Servaes M, Deconinck C, Pirson G, Berners A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In recent years, the DIEP-flap has become the standard for autologous breast reconstruction. However, when abdominal donor site is unavailable, secondary options are numerous. This report documents our experience with PAP-flap breast reconstruction.
METHOD: We carried out a retrospective study of patients who underwent reconstructive breast surgery by PAP-flaps in our institution since 2014.
RESULTS: Seventeen PAP-flaps were carried out in 15 patients, two of which received consecutive reconstruction of each breast at distinct intervals. Indication was lack of abdominal excess in 8 patients and history of abdominoplasty in 6 patients. These six patients and one more had bad or absence of perforator for DIEP flap. There were 2 flap losses (11.8%). Other complications included minor dehiscences from seroma at donor site in 6 cases (35.3%), flap dehiscence in one case (5.8%), and receiver site hematoma in 1 patient (5.8%).
DISCUSSION: The authors analyze their series when the high rate of complications and the results obtained compared to the second alternative choices of other teams.
CONCLUSION: The author is of the opinion that the PAP-Flap is a reliable option as a second choice for breast reconstruction in patients whose DIEP can not be retained. It is limited in terms of volume and a third choice should be considered when the indication is to reconstruct a breast of large volume.
METHOD: We carried out a retrospective study of patients who underwent reconstructive breast surgery by PAP-flaps in our institution since 2014.
RESULTS: Seventeen PAP-flaps were carried out in 15 patients, two of which received consecutive reconstruction of each breast at distinct intervals. Indication was lack of abdominal excess in 8 patients and history of abdominoplasty in 6 patients. These six patients and one more had bad or absence of perforator for DIEP flap. There were 2 flap losses (11.8%). Other complications included minor dehiscences from seroma at donor site in 6 cases (35.3%), flap dehiscence in one case (5.8%), and receiver site hematoma in 1 patient (5.8%).
DISCUSSION: The authors analyze their series when the high rate of complications and the results obtained compared to the second alternative choices of other teams.
CONCLUSION: The author is of the opinion that the PAP-Flap is a reliable option as a second choice for breast reconstruction in patients whose DIEP can not be retained. It is limited in terms of volume and a third choice should be considered when the indication is to reconstruct a breast of large volume.