ABSTRACT
Nowadays, the ultimate goal of microsurgical breast reconstruction is not merely the effective transfer of vascularized tissue but the achievement of a natural, symmetric appearance. The aim of this present study was to systematically summarize the published evidence on abdominal-based free flap inset for breast reconstruction in order to provide principles and classification that could guide the surgeon in choosing the most appropriate inset technique based on patient and flap characteristics. A comprehensive review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, looking for articles on the insetting technique for free flap breast reconstruction. After screening 306 publications, 24 papers (published from 1994 to 2020) were included in the study. We identified four main breast anatomical features on which the papers reviewed focused when describing their insetting technique: breast width, breast ptosis, breast projection, and upper pole fullness. Patient body type, type of mastectomy, and reported complications are also discussed. Flap shaping and inset during breast reconstruction are fundamental steps in any reconstructive procedure. Despite the low evidence in the current literature, this systematic review provides a framework to guide the surgeon's decision-making and optimize the aesthetic outcomes of abdominal-based free flap breast reconstruction.
ABSTRACT
We present a patient with recurrent breast cancer requiring massive resection of the upper chest. Management included a reverse abdominoplasty flap to resurface the anterior chest wall, with acceptable aesthetic outcomes, and adjuvant chemotherapy. RA is a simple and versatile coverage option in patients with high risk of disease recurrence.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: There is good evidence for the benefits of bilateral breast reduction (BBR). However, such surgery is often considered cosmetic and is rationed. The NHS Modernisation Agency and the British Association of Plastic Surgeons (as was) have produced national guidelines, but Primary Care Trusts adapt these for local implementation. METHODS: We surveyed the funding criteria for BBR of all 303 Trusts in England. 245 (81%) responded. RESULTS: The NHS guidelines were followed accurately by only 11 Trusts. 198 trusts specified a maximum BMI (range 25 to 32; guideline 30). 187 accepted musculoskeletal symptoms as an indication and 117 accepted intertrigo. 31 required a professionally fitted bra. Many Trusts included other restricting criteria that are not in the NHS guidelines. Some Trusts mentioned the American Society of Plastic Surgeons' guidelines, but did not follow them wholly. CONCLUSIONS: Even with explicit guidelines, considerable variation in local funding criteria exists with resultant inequalities in provision. The so-called 'postcode lottery' of healthcare in the UK is rife within Plastic Surgery. The recent reconfiguration of English Primary Care Trusts provides an excellent opportunity for the rationalisation of BBR provision and to this end we will distribute our findings and the NHS guidelines to the new Trusts and to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
