Chest Wall Perforator Flaps Research Articles

Reliability of Chest Wall Perforator Flaps for Breast Reshaping following Massive Weight Loss

Abstract Background Breast deformity following massive weight loss poses a unique challenge inadequately managed by traditional methods. Patients also have considerable lateral and posterior upper trunk tissue surplus. Multiple studies have used chest wall flaps for auto-augmentation with mastopexy to tackle this problem. However, the outcome measures did not include any objective tools to assess the reliability of these flaps. Hence, in this study sono-mammography and breast anthropometric measurements are used for evaluation of the added volume and long-term sustainability of chest wall perforator flaps. Methodology Twenty massive weight loss patients with Pittsburgh Rating Scale score 2-3 underwent mastopexy with autologous augmentation through perforator flaps encompassing lateral chest wall skin. Outcome measures were breast volume, and the presence of fat necrosis on mammography, and direct breast anthropometry. Conclusion All patients showed a consistent increase in volume postoperatively and no fat necrosis in postoperative mammography, reflecting flap reliability over one year of follow-up. All postoperative anthropometric measurements showed improvement in the breast deformities addressed. Level of Evidence IV This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

EP169 - Volume Replacement Perforator Flaps: Introducing a New Service to a DGH Oncoplastic Surgical Unit

Abstract Aims Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (BCS) has developed to facilitate adequate oncological resection whilst maintaining cosmesis. Volume replacement surgery allows immediate reconstruction with transposition of autologous tissue. One approach is the use of chest wall perforator flaps (CWPF). This increases access for patients to enhanced oncoplastic techniques facilitating BCS, in the setting of larger tumour size, reducing the mastectomy rate in our unit. Our aim was to analyse a series of patients undergoing CWPF in our DGH and determine whether oncological outcomes were comparable to traditional breast conserving surgery. Methods Patients undergoing CWPF reconstruction were identified using theatre records for a period of 12 months (Jan-Dec2023). Data was collected including patient demographics, histopathological findings and post-operative course and treatments. Results A total of seven patients were identified with median age 48 . Range of tumour sizes: 17mm-51mm. All were performed in the immediate setting with all undergoing SLNB. 3/7 required further surgery in the form of re-excision of margins. One patient developed a seroma, requiring aspiration once without further complication. Patient satisfaction is anecdotally high; however, this has not been quantified. Conclusions The utilisation of CWPF within our DGH has shown satisfactory outcomes. Performing these in the immediate setting means some patients have required re-excision of margins and replacement of flaps (similar to local figures for WLE without volume replacement) without impacting patient satisfaction. We advocate that CWPF significantly increases the options available as routine practice for suitable patients. OBCS is possible within the DGH without compromising oncological treatments or cosmesis.

Abstract PO3-23-06: Short-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery and mastectomy with and without immediate breast reconstruction: The UK ANTHEM multicentre prospective cohort study

Abstract Background: Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OPBCS) may allow women with early breast cancer to avoid mastectomy leading to fewer complications and better quality of life. High quality comparative evidence, however, is lacking. The UK ANTHEM study (ISRCTN18238549) aimed to explore the feasibility of undertaking a large-scale multicentre study comparing the clinical and patient reported outcomes (PROs) of OPBCS as an alternative to mastectomy +/- immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) in women offered both options. Methods: Women aged 18 and over with invasive breast cancer or DCIS not suitable for standard breast conserving surgery, who were offered OPBCS as an alternative to mastectomy +/- IBR were eligible to participate in the study. Demographic, operative, oncological data were collected and the numbers of women experiencing complications at 3 months following surgery compared by procedure type. Participants completed the validated BREAST-Q at baseline and 3 months post-operatively. Questionnaires were scored according to the developers’ instructions and scores compared across timepoints by procedure group. Analysis of covariance, adjusting for baseline scores was used to explore factors influencing patient-reported outcomes after surgery. Results: 361 women from 32 UK centres participated in the study. When offered both options, the majority (n=284, 78.7%) elected to undergo OPBCS with either a therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) (n=207, 57.3%) or a chest wall perforator flap (CWPF) (n=77, 21.3%). The remaining 77 (21.3%) women chose mastectomy with (n=40, 11.1%) or without IBR (n=37, 10.3%). Women having mastectomy + IBR were significantly younger than those choosing other procedure types (p=0.002) and those choosing TM had higher BMIs (P=0.008), but there were no other differences between the groups. By 3 months post-operatively, 23.0% (n=83) women had experienced at least one complication, but there were no differences between the groups (p=0.50). The BREAST-Q was completed by 329 (91.1%) and 282 (78.1%) women at baseline and 3 months respectively. Although their scores were initially the lowest, women undergoing TMs reported clinically meaningful and statistically significant increases in ‘Satisfaction with Breasts’ (baseline 53.7 [95% confidence interval [CI] 50.4-57.0] to 3 months 68.9 [95% CI 65.5-72.2], p< 0.001) and ‘Psychosocial Well-being’ scores (baseline 62.1 [95% CI 59.2-65.0] to 3 months 70.4 [95% CI 66.9-73.8] p< 0.001) from baseline to 3 months. Women having CWPF and mastectomy +/- IBR did not report any significant changes in either ‘Satisfaction with Breasts’ or ‘Psychosocial Well-being’ scores over time. ‘Physical Well-being’ scores significantly decreased from baseline to three months in all treatment groups (p< 0.001) but were lowest after mastectomy only (56.5 [95% CI 47.4-65.5]) and highest in the TM group (68.6 [95% CI 65.9-71.3], p< 0.001). ‘Sexual Well-being’ decreased in all groups except for women having mastectomy + IBR. Adjusting for baseline, women undergoing OPBCS with TM (13.2, 95% CI 4.2-22.2, p< 0.001) or CWPF (11.4, 1.6-21.2, p=0.02) reported significantly higher ‘Satisfaction with Breasts’ scores at 3 months than those undergoing mastectomy. Receipt of IBR did not appear to lead to significantly higher scores compared with mastectomy alone (6.47, 95% CI -6.19 to 19.12, p=0.32). Women undergoing TM reported significantly higher ‘Psychosocial’ and ‘Physical well-being’ at 3 months compared with those having other procedure types. Experiencing a post-operative complication resulted in significant decreases in all BREAST-Q domains. Conclusions: When offered OPBCS as an alternative to mastectomy, most women choose breast conservation. This option is safe and appears to be associated with improved short-term PROs, particularly in the TM group. Further work is needed to establish the long-term outcomes of these techniques to support informed decision-making. Citation Format: Charlotte Davies, Leigh Johnson, Carmel Conefrey, Nicola Mills, Patricia Fairbrother, Chris Holcombe, Lisa Whisker, William Hollingworth, Joanna Skillman, Paul White, Douglas MacMillan, Charles Comins, Shelley Potter. Short-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery and mastectomy with and without immediate breast reconstruction: The UK ANTHEM multicentre prospective cohort study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO3-23-06.

AB031. SOH24AB_134. Chest wall perforator flaps: oncological and surgical outcomes in a tertiary referral centre

AB031. SOH24AB_134. Chest wall perforator flaps: oncological and surgical outcomes in a tertiary referral centre

Surgical and oncological outcomes in 100 consecutive cases of therapeutic mammoplasty - A comparison with chest wall perforator flaps in the management of breast cancers

Surgical and oncological outcomes in 100 consecutive cases of therapeutic mammoplasty - A comparison with chest wall perforator flaps in the management of breast cancers

Chest wall perforator flaps: A valid level 2 oncoplastic option in centrally located and retro areolar malignant breast lesions

Chest wall perforator flaps: A valid level 2 oncoplastic option in centrally located and retro areolar malignant breast lesions

Combination techniques with chest WALL perforator flaps for total breast reconstruction

Combination techniques with chest WALL perforator flaps for total breast reconstruction

Chest wall perforator flaps for chest wall resurfacing following mastectomy for locally advanced or recurrent breast cancer – A systematic review of the literature and our experience

Chest wall perforator flaps for chest wall resurfacing following mastectomy for locally advanced or recurrent breast cancer – A systematic review of the literature and our experience

Patient-reported outcome measures with chest wall perforator flap reconstruction: The northern health experience

Patient-reported outcome measures with chest wall perforator flap reconstruction: The northern health experience

A prospective study evaluating patient reported outcome measures in patients who have undergone chest wall perforator flaps

A prospective study evaluating patient reported outcome measures in patients who have undergone chest wall perforator flaps

Ten-year trend analysis of breast cancer, oncoplastic, and reconstructive breast surgery in a single institution (2010-2019), what has not changed?

There has been a UK national directive to ensure that patients are offered reconstructive surgical options. We aimed to assess any change in oncoplastic practice over a 10-year period. The surgical management of 7019 breast cancers was retrospectively assessed at Nightingale Breast Centre, Manchester University UK, from 2010 to 2019. The procedures were categorised into breast conservative surgery (BCS) and mastectomy ± immediate reconstruction. The data were analysed using inclusion and exclusion criteria. The overall rates of BCS and mastectomy were 60.1% and 39.9% respectively. No statistically significant change in the overall rates of BCS or mastectomy was observed over the last decade (p = 0.08). The rate of simple wide local excision (WLE) decreased from 98.7% to 89.3% (p < 0.001), whilst the rate of therapeutic mammoplasty (TM) increased from 1.3% to 8% (p < 0.01). The rate of chest wall perforator flaps (CWPF) changed from zero to account for 2.7% of all BCS by 2019. The overall rate of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) did not significantly change over the study period, but it consistently remained above the national average of 27%. The rate of implant-based IBR increased from 61.3% to 76.5% (p = 0.012), whilst the rate of Latissimus Dorsi (LD) reconstruction decreased from 26.7% to 5.1% (p < 0.05). Additionally, the rate of nipple-sparing mastectomy significantly increased from 5.2% to 24%. No significant changes in the overall rates of BCS was observed, the rates of advanced breast conservation techniques, nipple-sparing mastectomy, and implant-based IBR all have increased, whilst the use of LD reconstruction decreased.

Patient-reported Outcome Measures with Chest Wall Perforator Flap Reconstruction: The Northern Health Experience

Patient-reported Outcome Measures with Chest Wall Perforator Flap Reconstruction: The Northern Health Experience

Surveillance Imaging in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Breast Conserving Surgery With Chest Wall Perforator Flap Reconstruction

Surveillance Imaging in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Breast Conserving Surgery With Chest Wall Perforator Flap Reconstruction

Chest wall perforator flap partial breast reconstruction: a retrospective analysis of surgical, cosmetic and survival outcome.

Oncoplastic breast surgery includes volume replacement as well as volume displacement. Autologous tissue is the preferred approach for volume replacement and includes chest wall perforator flaps (CWPF). Although described more than a decade ago, CWPFs have not been adopted widely in clinical practice till recently. We report the largest single-centre institutional data on CWPFs. The study includes all patients who underwent breast conservation surgery (BCS) using CWPFs from January 2015 to December 2022. Data were retrieved from the institutional electronic record and Redcap database. The analysis was done using SPSS 23 and STATA 14. 150 patients were included in the study. The mean age was 48.8 years (SD 10.4), and the body mass index was (26.6 kg/m2, SD 4.3). >50% of patients had breasts with small cup sizes (A&B) and mild ptosis (Non-ptotic and Grade 1 ptosis). 44.7% of patients underwent lateral intercostal artery perforator flap (LICAP), anterior intercostal artery perforator flap in 31.3%, lateral thoracic perforator flap (LTAP) in 12%, LICAP + LTAP in 11.3% and thoracodorsal artery perforator flap in 1%. Post-operatively, haematoma was seen in 1.3%, complete flap necrosis in 1.3%, seroma in 7%, wound dehiscence in 12%, and positive margin in 6.7%. 92 patients responded to the satisfaction assessment, of which >90% were happy with the surgical scars, comfortable going out in a public place, satisfied with the symmetry of the breast, and no one chose mastectomy in hindsight. The 5-year predicted disease free survival and overall survival were 86.4% and 94.7%, respectively. BCS with CWPF is an excellent option for reconstruction in small to medium-sized breasts. It is associated with minimal morbidity and comparable patient-reported cosmetic and survival outcomes.

Algoritmo para la selección de colgajos perforantes perimamarios en reconstrucción inmediata poscirugía conservadora

Background: Chest wall perforator flaps are a good option for immediate breast reconstruction after conservative surgery. Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the clinical results of an algorithm for using chest wall perforator flaps for breast reconstruction after breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer. Material and methods: We conducted a descriptive and retrospective study. The information was retrieved from the medical records of the patients diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery and required reconstruction using chest wall perforator flaps between January 2020 and March 2022. The indications included volume deficit, contour defect and asymmetry. The vascular pedicle of the flap was evaluated by color Doppler ultrasound in all cases, which allowed us to follow an algorithm for selecting the best flap option. Results: Twenty flaps were made in 19 patients. Mean age: 52 years ± 11 (range 30-76). There were no intraoperative complications. One patient required reoperation due to a hematoma with compression of the vascular pedicle of the flap with partial flap loss, and another flap presented superficial epidermolysis. There were no cases of complete flap loss. All the patients underwent postoperative radiation therapy without loss of volume or retractions. Mean follow-up was 15 months. At 6 months, patients rated the results as excellent, good, and fair in 7, 11, and 2 cases, respectively. Conclusion: The selection of local perforator flaps to correct breast defects after conservative surgery, using preoperative color Doppler ultrasound to identify the vascular pedicle and a specific algorithm, allowed us to obtain satisfactory aesthetic results without the need for alloplastic elements or subsequent revisions.

The Extended Chest Wall Perforator Flap: Expanding the Indication for Partial Breast Reconstruction.

The intercostal artery perforator flap has traditionally been used to reconstruct small or moderate-sized single defects in the lateral or lower medial breast during breast-conserving surgery. We report a modification of the intercostal artery perforator flap that allows for reconstruction of larger breast tumors than previously described flap designs. A retrospective study of breast cancer patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery and immediate partial breast reconstruction with an extended chest wall perforator flap. Primary outcomes were successful tumor excision, adequate radial margins, postoperative complications, and delays to adjuvant radiotherapy. Thirty patients were included. Mean radiological tumor size was 27 mm (11-56 mm) and excision volume, 123 cm3 (18-255 cm3). All tumors had satisfactory excision margins, and no patient required further surgery for re-excision. In the early postoperative period, one patient required radiological drainage of seroma, and one returned to theater for debridement of fat necrosis affecting the flap. Ten other patients were managed on an outpatient basis for minor wound complications. All patients were followed up annually for 5 years. No patients had a delay to adjuvant treatment or required revisional procedures for cosmesis. The modified chest wall perforator flap allows for breast conservation for larger tumors from all quadrants of the breast, including centrally located tumors and reconstruction of the axillary defect following lymph node clearance. The length of the flap allows for the use of multiple perforators in the pedicle area and freedom of the flap to reach the defects. This can be performed with low morbidity and no delay to adjuvant radiotherapy.

181 (PB-088) Poster - Versatility of chest wall perforator flaps and radiological findings at follow up

181 (PB-088) Poster - Versatility of chest wall perforator flaps and radiological findings at follow up

A prospective study evaluating patient reported outcome measures in patients who have undergone chest wall perforator flaps

To evaluate Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and surgical outcomes in patients undergoing Chest Wall Perforator Flaps (CWPFs). This was an observational single cohort study using an audit approach and a survey instrument. 84 patients who had undergone CWPFs in the last 5 years at the Department of Breast Surgery, City Hospital Birmingham, were identified from a pre-existing database. Surgical outcomes were recorded. Patients were contacted telephonically or in person at the time of follow-up and were asked to fill up a PROMs questionnaire. Out of 84 patients, 58 patients chose to respond. The average age of the patients was 51.3 years (±8.2 years). The average follow-up was 15.4 months (±9.9 months). The most common histological subtype was Infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC)-Not otherwise specified 34/58 (58.6%). Majority of the patients had T2 cancers-28/58 (48.3%). 26/58 (44.8%) were node negative. Eight patients (13.7%) had post-operative complications. No patient had total/partial flap loss. Nine patients (15.5%) had margin re-excision. One patient developed distant metastasis while 1 patient developed a second primary. Fifty-one patients (88%) were either satisfied or very satisfied with the post-operative appearance of the breasts. Thirty-six patients (62%) had no/little persistent pain or tenderness post-surgery. Eighty-six per cent (38/44) of the patients undergoing Lateral Intercostal Artery Perforator (LICAP) Flap and 16/18 (89%) of patients undergoing Anterior Intercostal Artery Perforator (AICAP) flap had no/little difficulty in carrying out normal activities at follow up. CWPFs are associated with a low complication rate and a high patient satisfaction rate.

Chest wall perforator flaps in breast cancer surgery are safe and can decrease mastectomy rates. A multicentre study.

Chest wall perforator flaps in breast cancer surgery are safe and can decrease mastectomy rates. A multicentre study.

A before and after evaluation of patient reported outcomes assessed by Breast Q following LICAP turnover flap in breast conservative therapy.

Chest-wall perforator-based techniques to replace volume for breast conservative therapy allow excision of large breast areas with minimal sequalae, such as the nipple-areolar complex displacement, parenchymal indentation or contour deformity. Furthermore, chest wall perforator flaps facilitate the maintenance of breast symmetry, hence decreasing the need for contralateral surgery. Lateral intercostal flap was described in numerous variants among which the most famous are the propeller flap and the turnover version. The turnover version is the easiest and fastest version that allows the replacement of large amount of volume. In this paper, we evaluate patients reported outcomes, before and after surgery, collected through the Breast Q. This study was conducted on 21 patients who were admitted to the plastic surgery department. A prospectively maintained database was used to identify the patients and their records were assessed retrospectively. The pre/post operative patients data were collected. The Breast-Q questionnaire was administered before the surgery and at least 1year after. No major surgical complications were reported. Mean Breast-Q scores were evaluated at least 1year after surgery and radiotherapy and compared with pre-surgical scores. Among all the modules, no significant differences between the pre-surgical and post-surgical Breast-Q scores were observed. Until now, the lateral intercostal artery perforator flap has not been widely used, due to a difficult dissection and a challenging preoperative planning. According to the reported surgical technique, the execution is easy. This technique provides the same breast-related quality of life compared to preoperative values, reduces the mastectomy rate and increases the overall survival.