How to Assess Sensory Recovery After Breast Reconstruction Surgery?

BACKGROUND: We evaluated clinical against psychophysical (tactile and thermal quantitative sensory test [QST]), neurophysiologic (somatosensory evoked potential [SEP]), and epithelial nerve fiber density (ENFD) examinations in detection and follow-up of sensory alterations after breast reconstruction done with or without nerve anastomoses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a prospective 2-year follow-up design, 56 breast cancer patients underwent innervated and 20 patients noninnervated free rectus abdominis muscle-sparing flap (ms-TRAM) breast reconstruction. Healthy contralateral breasts (36 patients) and 20 healthy volunteer women served as control participants. The diagnostic values of clinical examination, QST, SEP, and ENFD tests were assessed at baseline, and 1 and 2 years postoperatively. RESULTS: Sensation of mastectomized thoracic skin was impaired before reconstruction surgery, confirmed with QST (P < .001 for tactile, warm and cool detection; others not significant). All tests were further impaired at 1 year (P < .012-.0001), but mostly showed improvement during subsequent follow-up (P < .001-.0001), except for vibration and 2-point discrimination, ENFD, and SEP. QST improved diagnostic accuracy for large as well as small fiber function performing best in assessing sensory recovery at 2 years. Of clinical tests, sharp-blunt discrimination was modestly useful (sensitivity, 0.85; poor specificity, 0.17). Two-point and vibration discrimination tests had poor diagnostic values. SEP recording was modestly sensitive (0.50), but not specific (0.25). Because of sparse epithelial innervation already at baseline, ENFD performed poorly. CONCLUSION: Most tests could identify sensory nerve damage postoperatively. Tactile and thermal QST were most reliable, and sensitive also in confirming sensory recovery. SEP recording was useful especially in differentiating surgical techniques, whereas ENFD and clinical examination performed poorly, with the exception of sharp-blunt discrimination.

Improved sensory recovery with a novel dual neurorrhaphy technique for breast reconstruction with free muscle sparing TRAM flap technique.

BACKGROUND: We describe a new dual neurorrhaphy method for a free abdominal-based flap and compare sensory recovery with this novel technique to that with conventional neurorrhaphy technique for breast reconstruction. METHODS: 70 breast cancer patients underwent muscle sparing innervated transversal rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (neuro ms-TRAM) breast reconstruction with either a novel dual neurorrhaphy technique (N = 41) or single (N = 29) neurorrhaphy only. Dual neurorrhaphy was performed on both sides and single neurorrhaphy on one side of the flap, using the end-to-end or end-to-side technique. Two years postoperatively, quantitative sensory testing (QST) was performed for tactile, and thermal sensory modalities, and other tests included sharp-blunt, vibration, and two-point discrimination. Sensory modalities were scored either zero (abnormal) or one point (normal) at each test site against normal reference values (five sites for most tests). The total sensory scores (TSC) were calculated on the basis of the sums of the individual test scores, and all data are presented as the median (interquartile range, IQR). RESULTS: The median of TSC in the breast reconstruction with the dual neurorrhaphy was higher (15.3, IQR 11.8-19.4), than that with the single neurorrhaphy (11.5, IQR 9.1-17.4) (P = 0.037). Regarding the different sensory modalities, the dual technique especially enhanced the tactile (P = 0.005) and cool detection (P = 0.021) recovery compared to the single neurorrhaphy. CONCLUSIONS: Dual neurorrhaphy improved the sensory recovery of the reconstructed breast, and may therefore be recommended for clinical practice. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery 37:21-28, 2017.

A microneurovascular TRAM flap does not compromise abdominal sensibility more than a conventional one.

BACKGROUND: Classic abdominoplasty for a transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap breast reconstruction impairs abdominal somatosensory function at the donor site. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the type of surgical procedure has an effect on somatosensory alterations of abdominal skin after TRAM flap breast reconstruction. METHODS: Sixty patients (mean ± SD age, 50 ± 6.0 years) who underwent microvascular TRAM flap breast reconstruction and 20 healthy subjects (control group; mean age, 46 ± 6.7 years) participated in the study. Twenty patients had bilateral-nerve anastomosis, 20 had single-nerve anastomosis, and 20 underwent no nerve dissection for the TRAM flap. Clinical sensory examination and tactile and thermal quantitative sensory testing were performed and a patient questionnaire was administered at a mean of 2 to 4.5 years after surgery. RESULTS: All surgical techniques produced significant sensory impairment below the umbilicus, but there were no significant differences in total sensibility scores between the groups with single-nerve (mean sensibility score, 21.98 ± 2.7) and double-nerve (mean sensibility score, 20.71 ± 3.6) anastomosis of the TRAM flap. The best sensibility scores were found in the group with single-nerve dissection. Fifteen percent of patients complained of mild pain, and 13 percent felt occasional tactile hyperesthesia in their abdominal skin, mostly around the umbilicus and scars. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, unilateral or bilateral nerve dissection when preparing and lifting a TRAM flap did not seem to increase sensory alterations or postoperative pain in the abdominal donor site after breast reconstruction surgery. Cautious microneurovascular dissection techniques may even improve sensory recovery of the abdominal skin after TRAM flap breast reconstruction surgery.

A new approach to microneurovascular TRAM-flap breast reconstruction--a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The aims of the present study were to investigate whether microneurovascular breast reconstruction with a free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap and nerve repair with nerves other than ThIV and ThXI improve sensory recovery of the breast compared to traditional free TRAM flap without nerve repair, and which nerve is optimal for the neural anastomosis of the flap. METHODS: Twenty breast cancer patients underwent breast reconstruction with a free TRAM flap and nerve repair (neuro-TRAM) with the best available nerve from the axillary area and 20 control patients had traditional free TRAM flap without nerve repair (standard-TRAM). Neurorrhaphy was done by end-to-end or end-to-side techniques. Sensory and quantitative sensory testings (QST) were performed. Patient satisfaction was evaluated by a clinical questionnaire. The results were analysed by Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 32 months for the neuro-TRAM, and 54 months for the standard-TRAM group. Sensory outcome was better in the neuro-TRAM group (sensory score 45% of that of the contralateral breast) than in the standard-TRAM group (26% of the contralateral side). The median (quartiles) of total scores in the operated breasts was 12.9 (9.5-19.2) in neuro-TRAM group and 8.1 (3.5-10.7) in standard-TRAM group (Mann-Whitney Test (p=0.006)). All nerves available in the thoracic and axillary areas and both of the anastomosis techniques were successful in the reinnervation procedure. Nerve repair did not influence overall patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that any nerve repair results in improved sensory recovery after TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Any nerve available for anastomosis in the recipient site is potentially able to provide moderately good cutaneous sensibility to the TRAM-breast.