Pelvi-perineal flap reconstruction: normal imaging appearances and post-operative complications on cross-sectional imaging.

Radical pelvic surgery is often required in patients with advanced, persistent or recurrent gynaecological and anorectal malignancies. In the last decade, pedicled flap reconstructions have been increasingly used for pelvic floor and neovaginal reconstruction, introducing well-vascularised non-irradiated tissue into the wound cavity and hence reducing wound complications. The aim of this pictorial review is to describe the normal post-operative cross-sectional imaging appearances of the most commonly used pelvi-perineal flap reconstructions and to illustrate the complications that may arise at the flap donor and recipient sites.

Technical variations of the bipedicled TRAM flap in unilateral breast reconstruction: effects of conventional versus microsurgical techniques of pedicle transfer on complications rates.

In cases of unilateral breast reconstruction with a transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap, poorly perfused tissue, which is normally excised to avoid subsequent fat necrosis, must sometimes be used to achieve adequate breast size and projection. In such cases, incorporation of a second vascular pedicle into the flap design improves perfusion. The authors retrospectively examined their experience with bipedicled TRAM flap-based unilateral breast reconstruction to determine whether the use of microsurgical rather than conventional (nonmicrosurgical) techniques for flap transfer resulted in lower incidences of flap-site fat necrosis and donor-site hernia/bulge. The authors retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent unilateral breast reconstruction with a bipedicled TRAM or deep inferior epigastric perforator flap between January of 1991 and March of 2001. Group 1 consisted of patients who had undergone flap transfer using a conventional technique for both pedicles; group 2, patients who had flap transfer using a conventional technique for one pedicle and a microsurgical technique for the other; and group 3, patients who had flap transfer using a microsurgical technique for both pedicles. Of the 863 patients identified, 72 (8.3 percent) had undergone reconstruction using a bipedicled flap. There were 43 patients in group 1, 24 patients in group 2, and five patients in group 3. Only one case of total flap loss had occurred (group 1). Partial flap loss occurred in two patients in group 1 (5 percent) and three patients in group 2 (13 percent). Fat necrosis occurred more frequently in groups 1 (23 percent) and 2 (29 percent) than in group 3 (0 percent) (p = 0.5, Fisher's exact test). Similarly, bulge or hernia was more common in groups 1 (12 percent) and 2 (4 percent) than in group 3 (0 percent) (p = 0.6, Fisher's exact test). In this study, patients who received a bipedicled TRAM flap using microsurgical techniques alone (group 3) appeared to have better flap perfusion and less frequent hernia/bulge than did patients who underwent flap transfer using conventional (group 1) or combined techniques (group 2). However, these differences were not statistically significant, and this trend must be verified in a larger study.

Optimizing autologous breast reconstruction in thin patients.

Breast reconstruction with a transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap plus an implant has been proposed as an option for women with a thin body habitus who do not have sufficient abdominal tissue to permit reconstruction with a TRAM flap alone. The standard autologous tissue reconstructive procedure in these women is a combined latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap and breast implant. We reviewed our experience performing TRAM flap/implant and latissimus dorsi flap/implant breast reconstruction to compare complication rates and aesthetic outcomes between these two types of reconstruction. Between 1992 and 1999, 88 breasts were reconstructed at our institution using an autologous tissue flap combined with a breast implant (44 with a TRAM flap/implant and 44 with a latissimus dorsi flap/implant). Recipient-site and donor-site complications for the two procedures were compared using Fisher's exact test; a panel of unbiased, blinded judges compared the aesthetic outcomes. The recipient-site complication rate was lower for the TRAM flap/implant group than for the latissimus dorsi flap/implant group (18 percent versus 34 percent, p = 0.09). Most recipient-site complications in the TRAM flap/implant group were related to fluid collection around the implant. In the TRAM flap/implant group, complications occurred in 37 percent of the reconstructions that had immediate implant placement and in none of the reconstructions with delayed implant placement (p = 0.01). In the TRAM flap/implant reconstructions with immediate implant placement, the recipient-site complication rate was 50 percent when implants were completely filled with saline, but no complications occurred with incompletely filled, postoperatively adjustable implants (p = 0.03). No microvascular complications occurred with immediate placement of breast implants under TRAM flaps. Donor-site complications included a hematoma, a seroma, and an umbilical necrosis in the TRAM flap/implant group and six cases of seroma formation in the latissimus dorsi flap/implant group. The comparison of aesthetic outcome was statistically significant for the TRAM flap/implant group, which had a higher overall mean score than the latissimus dorsi flap/implant group did (3.29 versus 2.85, p = 0.01). The results of this study suggest that the TRAM flap/implant breast reconstruction should be considered as an alternative to the latissimus dorsi flap/implant breast reconstruction in women with a thin body habitus.