No Skin Paddle, No Problem: Burying Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Flaps in the Immediate Setting is Safe in Select Patient Populations.

BACKGROUND: In appropriately selected patients, it may be possible to fully bury breast free flaps deep to the mastectomy skin flaps. Because this practice forgoes the incorporation of a monitoring skin paddle for the flap, and thus limits the ability for physical exam, it may be associated with an increased risk of flap loss or other perfusion-related complications, such as fat necrosis. We hypothesized that fully de-epithelialized breast free flaps were not associated with an increased complication rate and reduced the need for future revision surgery. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review of 206 deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEP) flaps in 142 patients was performed between June 2016 and September 2021. Flaps were grouped into buried or nonburied categories based on the absence or presence of a monitoring paddle. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed postoperatively using the BREAST-Q breast reconstruction module. Electronic medical record data included demographics, comorbidities, flap characteristics, complications, and revision surgery. RESULTS: The buried flap patients (N = 46) had a lower median body mass index (26.9 vs 30.3, p = 0.04) and a lower rate of hypertension (19.5 vs. 37.5%, p = 0.04) compared with nonburied flap patients (N = 160). Burying flaps was more likely to be adopted in skin-sparing mastectomy or nipple-sparing mastectomy (p = 0.001) and in an immediate or a delayed-immediate fashion (p = 0.009). There was one flap loss in the nonburied group; complication rates were similar. There was a significantly greater revision rate in the nonburied flap patients (92 vs. 70%; p = 0.002). Buried flap patients exhibited a greater satisfaction with breasts (84.5 ± 13.4 vs. 73.9 ± 21.4; p = 0.04) and sexual satisfaction (73.1 ± 22.4 vs. 53.7 ± 29.7; p = 0.01) compared with nonburied flap patients. CONCLUSION: Burying breast free flaps in appropriately selected patients does not appear to have a higher complication rate when compared with flaps with an externalized monitoring paddle. Furthermore, this modification may be associated with a better immediate aesthetic outcome and improved patient satisfaction, as evidenced by a lower rate of revision surgery and superior BREAST-Q scores among buried DIEP flaps.

Do Buccal Flaps Improve Velopharyngeal Insufficiency in Conversion Furlow Palatoplasty for Patients with Cleft Palate?

SUMMARY: Velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) is a complication following primary palatoplasty that can lead to hypernasality of the voice and other speech problems. The conversion Furlow palatoplasty for VPI can be performed with the addition of buccal flaps to provide additional tissue for palatal repair. In this study, the authors aimed to determine the effectiveness of buccal flaps with conversion Furlow palatoplasty in secondary management of VPI. A retrospective review of patients undergoing surgical repair of VPI between 2016 and 2020 was performed. Patients underwent either conversion Furlow palatoplasty alone (FA) or conversion Furlow palatoplasty with buccal flaps (FB) for VPI after primary straight-line repair of the palate. The authors reviewed medical records to collect demographics, operative information, and preoperative and postoperative speech scores. Of the 77 patients in the study, 16 (21%) had a revision that incorporated buccal flaps. The median age at cleft palate revision surgery was 8.97 years in the FA group and 7.96 years in the FB group ( P = 0.337). In the FA group, four patients (7%) developed a postoperative fistula, compared with zero patients in the FB group. The average time to follow-up after revision surgery was 3.4 years (range, 7 months to 5.9 years). Both cohorts demonstrated a decrease in hypernasality and total parameter scores postoperatively. The use of buccal flaps in revision Furlow palatoplasty could decrease the risk for postoperative complications. The use of data from a larger patient population from multiple institutions is warranted to determine true significance. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Repeat Buccal Flaps Successfully Reduce Hypernasality in a Patient with Cleft Palate.

Surgical intervention can contribute to the development of velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) leading to hypernasality and regurgitation. In this case, a patient with a history of bilateral buccal flaps used for her primary CP repair presented to clinic with hypernasality and VPI as assessed by speech exam and imaging. She underwent repeat bilateral buccal flap palatal lengthening with division of the pedicles 3 months later. Three months after her division, her hypernasality score improved from moderate to mild and her posterior gap decreased. This study concluded buccal flaps can be used a second time for patients needing palatal revisions for VPI.

Predictive Factors for Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Following Primary Cleft Palate Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) remains a known complication of primary palatoplasty. We sought to identify factors associated with the incidence of VPI and create a predictive model for VPI development in our population. DESIGN: A single-institution, retrospective review. SETTING: Multidisciplinary clinic in a tertiary academic institution. PATIENTS: A total of 453 consecutive patients undergoing primary palatoplasty from 1999 to 2016 were reviewed. Inclusion required follow-up past age 5. Patients who were non-verbal, and thus unable to undergo speech evaluation, were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was VPI, defined as revision palatoplasty or recommendation by speech-language pathology. RESULTS: Of 318 patients included, 179 (56%) were male. Median age at primary repair was 1.0 years (0.9-1.1) with a median age of 8.8 years at last follow-up. One hundred nineteen (37%) patients developed VPI at a median age of 5.0 years (3.8-6.5). Higher rates were seen with posterior fistula (65% vs 14%, P <.01) and straight-line repair (41% vs 9%, P <.01), with lower rates in patients with Veau I clefts (22% vs 39%, P <.05). Patients with VPI were older at last follow-up. Following multivariate regression, factors remaining significant were posterior fistula (odds ratio [OR]: 11.3, 95% CI: 6.1-22.0), primary Furlow repair (OR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.03-0.68), genetic diagnoses (OR: 2.92, 95% CI: 1.1-7.9), and age at last follow-up (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.01-1.2). CONCLUSIONS: Length of follow-up, posterior fistulae, and genetic diagnoses are associated with VPI formation. Furlow repair may protect against formation of VPI. Use of allograft, Veau class, birth type, birth weight, and race are not independently associated with VPI formation.