Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2024; 40(02): 118-122
DOI: 10.1055/a-2086-0072
Original Article

Reduction in Seroma Rate Following Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap with Umbilectomy Utilizing Progressive Tension Sutures

Alexis C. Lakatta
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Cyrus Steppe
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Sumeet S. Teotia
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Nicholas T. Haddock
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Umbilectomy has been implemented in both abdominoplasties and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps to improve abdominal wound healing and better control the location of the neoumbilicus; however, seroma rates are increased. The objective of this study is to compare the seroma rate following DIEP flap reconstruction with umbilectomy when progressive tension sutures (PTS) are implemented.

Methods A retrospective chart review was performed to evaluate postoperative seroma rates in patients undergoing DIEP flap breast reconstruction at a single academic institution between January 2015 and September 2022. All procedures were performed by two senior surgeons. Patients were included if their umbilicus was removed intraoperatively. PTS were utilized in all abdominal closures beginning in late February 2022. Demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications were evaluated.

Results A total of 241 patients underwent DIEP flap breast reconstruction with intraoperative umbilectomy. Forty-three consecutive patients received PTS. Overall complications were significantly lower in those who received PTS (p = 0.007). There were no abdominal seromas (0%) in patients who received PTS, whereas 14 (7.1%) occurred without PTS. The use of PTS conferred a decreased likelihood of abdominal seroma (5.687× lower risk, p = 0.017). Additionally, wound formation was significantly lower in those who received PTS (p = 0.031).

Conclusion The use of PTS in the abdominal closure during DIEP flap reconstruction addresses the previously seen rise in seroma rates when concomitant umbilectomy is performed. Decrease in both donor-site wounds and now seroma rates reaffirm the efficacy of removing the umbilicus to improve patient outcomes.

Keywords

breast reconstruction - DIEP flap - progressive tension sutures


Publication History

Received: 22 November 2022

Accepted: 02 May 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
04 May 2023

Article published online:
15 June 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Koshima I, Soeda S. Inferior epigastric artery skin flaps without rectus abdominis muscle. Br J Plast Surg 1989; 42 (06) 645-648
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Allen RJ, Treece P. Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 32 (01) 32-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gill PS, Hunt JP, Guerra AB. et al. A 10-year retrospective review of 758 DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113 (04) 1153-1160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Heidekrueger PI, Moellhoff N, Horch RE. et al. Overall complication rates of DIEP flap breast reconstructions in Germany-a multi-center analysis based on the DGPRÄC prospective national online registry for microsurgical breast reconstructions. J Clin Med 2021; 10 (05) 1016
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Haddock NT, Teotia SS. Efficient DIEP flap: bilateral breast reconstruction in less than four hours. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021; 9 (09) e3801
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sharma HR, Rozen WM, Mathur B, Ramakrishnan V. 100 steps of a DIEP flap-a prospective comparative cohort series demonstrating the successful implementation of process mapping in microsurgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019; 7 (01) e2016
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Stern CS, Plotsker EL, Nelson JA. et al. Optimizing unilateral deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction: a quality improvement study. J Healthc Qual 2022; 44 (06) 354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Haddock NT, Kelling JA, Teotia SS. Neoumbilicus after selective excision in deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 146 (05) 548e-551e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Perez K, Teotia SS, Haddock NT. To ablate or not to ablate: the question if umbilectomy decreases donor site complications in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2023; DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010617.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Salgarello M, Tambasco D, Farallo E. DIEP flap donor site versus elective abdominoplasty short-term complication rates: a meta-analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012; 36 (02) 363-369
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Merchant A, Speck NE, Michalak M, Schaefer DJ, Farhadi J. Comparing seroma formation at the deep inferior epigastric perforator, transverse musculocutaneous gracilis, and superior gluteal artery perforator flap donor sites after microsurgical breast reconstruction. Arch Plast Surg 2022; 49 (04) 494-500
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lindenblatt N, Gruenherz L, Farhadi J. A systematic review of donor site aesthetic and complications after deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 2019; 8 (04) 389-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Seretis K, Goulis D, Demiri EC, Lykoudis EG. Prevention of seroma formation following abdominoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aesthet Surg J 2017; 37 (03) 316-323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Stephens TV, Van Laeken N, Macadam SA. Refractory donor-site seroma following DIEP breast reconstruction. Plastic Surgery Case Studies. 2020; 6 DOI: 10.1177/2513826 x 19898831.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Pollock TA, Pollock H. Commentary on: decrease in seroma rate after adopting progressive tension sutures without drains: a single surgery center experience of 451 abdominoplasties over 7 years. Aesthet Surg J 2016; 36 (09) 1036-1038
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Goldman A, Wollina U, França K, Tchernev G, Lotti T. Chronic encapsulated seroma persisting for three years after abdominoplasty and a successful surgical solution. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2018; 6 (01) 82-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Baroudi R, Ferreira CA. Seroma: how to avoid it and how to treat it. Aesthet Surg J 1998; 18 (06) 439-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Jabbour S, Awaida C, Mhawej R, Bassilios Habre S, Nasr M. Does the addition of progressive tension sutures to drains reduce seroma incidence after abdominoplasty? a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aesthet Surg J 2017; 37 (04) 440-447
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Pollock H, Pollock T. Progressive tension sutures: a technique to reduce local complications in abdominoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 105 (07) 2583-2586 , discussion 2587–2588
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Pollock TA, Pollock H. Progressive tension sutures in abdominoplasty: a review of 597 consecutive cases. Aesthet Surg J 2012; 32 (06) 729-742
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pollock TA, Pollock H. No-drain abdominoplasty with progressive tension sutures. Clin Plast Surg 2010; 37 (03) 515-524
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Nagarkar P, Lakhiani C, Cheng A, Lee M, Teotia S, Saint-Cyr M. No-drain DIEP flap donor-site closure using barbed progressive tension sutures. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016; 4 (04) e672
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL. et al; REDCap Consortium. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform 2019; 95: 103208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (02) 377-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Haddock NT, Garza R, Boyle CE, Teotia SS. Observations from implementation of the ERAS protocol after DIEP flap breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2022; 38 (06) 506-510
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rodnoi P, Teotia SS, Haddock NT. Economic impact of refinements in ERAS pathways in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2022; 38 (07) 524-529
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh, Version 28.0. Released 2021
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Cho MJ, Teotia SS, Haddock NT. Predictors, classification, and management of umbilical complications in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (01) 11-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kim HB, Han SJ, Kim EK, Eom JS, Han HH. Comparative study of DIEP and PAP flaps in breast reconstruction: reconstructive outcomes and fat necrosis. J Reconstr Microsurg 2023; 39 (08) 627-632
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Cho MJ, Teotia SS, Haddock NT. Classification and management of donor-site wound complications in the profunda artery perforator flap for breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2020; 36 (02) 110-115
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Allen RJ, Haddock NT, Ahn CY, Sadeghi A. Breast reconstruction with the profunda artery perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129 (01) 16e-23e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Haddock NT, Teotia SS. Lumbar artery perforator flap: initial experience with simultaneous bilateral flaps for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020; 8 (05) e2800
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar