Introduction to chest wall reconstruction: anatomy and physiology of the chest and indications for chest wall reconstruction.

The chest wall functions as a protective cage around the vital organs of the body, and significant disruption of its structure can have dire respiratory and circulatory consequences. The past several decades have seen a marked improvement in the management and reconstruction of complex chest wall defects. Widespread acceptance of muscle and musculocutaneous flaps such as the latissimus dorsi, pectoralis major, serratus anterior, and rectus abdominis has led to a sharp decrease in infections and mortality. Successful reconstructions are dependent upon a detailed knowledge of the functional anatomy and blood supply of the chest and the underlying pathophysiology of a particular disease process. This article will provide an overview of key principles and evidence-based approaches to chest wall reconstruction.

Workhorse flaps in chest wall reconstruction: the pectoralis major, latissimus dorsi, and rectus abdominis flaps.

Large and life-threatening thoracic cage defects can result from the treatment of traumatic injuries, tumors, infection, congenital anomalies, and radiation injury and require prompt reconstruction to restore respiratory function and soft tissue closure. Important factors for consideration are coverage with healthy tissue to heal a wound, the potential alteration in respiratory mechanics created by large extirpations or nonhealing thoracic wounds, and the need for immediate coverage for vital structures. The choice of technique depends on the size and extent of the defect, its location, and donor site availability with consideration to previous thoracic or abdominal operations. The focus of this article is specifically to describe the use of the pectoralis major, latissimus dorsi, and rectus abdominis muscle flaps for reconstruction of thoracic defects, as these are the workhorse flaps commonly used for chest wall reconstruction.

Reoperations after prophylactic mastectomy with or without implant reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The authors characterized the unanticipated reoperations after prophylactic mastectomy, with or without implant reconstruction. METHODS: The surgical cohort was comprised of 1417 women with a family history of breast carcinoma. The women received a prophylactic mastectomy with (bilateral, n = 593; contralateral, n = 506) or without reconstruction (n = 318) at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) between 1960 and 1993. Reoperations and indications for reoperation were compiled from medical records and a patient survey. RESULTS: Three hundred eighteen women received a bilateral (n = 39) or contralateral (n = 279) prophylactic mastectomy without reconstruction. With a median follow-up of 15 years, 18 women (6%) required reoperation. Most of these reoperations occurred within the first year after prophylactic mastectomy. Five hundred ninety-three women had reconstruction with implants following bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. Approximately one-half of the women (52%) required at least 1 unanticipated reoperation during a median follow-up of 14 years. Approximately 39% of all reoperations occurred within 1 year of breast reconstruction and 69% within 5 years. Implant-related issues were the most common cause for reoperation. Some women with breast carcinoma elected to receive contralateral prophylactic mastectomy with therapeutic mastectomy for the affected breast. Five hundred six women received reconstruction with implants. During a median follow-up of 8.8 years, 189 women (37%) required unanticipated reoperation. The most common indication was implant-related issues. The time course of reoperations was similar to that for women in the bilateral group. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical reoperations were fairly common among women who received prophylactic mastectomy with implant reconstruction. Most of the reoperations were implant related. Reoperations were fairly uncommon after prophylactic mastectomy without reconstruction.