Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

uu.sePublications from Uppsala University
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction with a deep inferior epigastric perforator flap without skin paddle using delayed primary retention suture
Chang Gung Univ, Chang Gung Mem Hosp, Dept Plast & Reconstruct Surg, Div Reconstruct Microsurg,Coll Med, 5 Fu Hsing St, Taoyuan 33305, Taiwan.;Royal Coll Surgeons Ireland, Dept Plast & Reconstruct Surg, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Plastic Surgery. Chang Gung Univ, Chang Gung Mem Hosp, Dept Plast & Reconstruct Surg, Div Reconstruct Microsurg,Coll Med, 5 Fu Hsing St, Taoyuan 33305, Taiwan.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3775-2914
Chang Gung Mem Hosp, Dept Gen Surg, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Chang Gung Univ, Chang Gung Mem Hosp, Dept Plast & Reconstruct Surg, Div Reconstruct Microsurg,Coll Med, 5 Fu Hsing St, Taoyuan 33305, Taiwan.
Show others and affiliations
2022 (English)In: Journal of Surgical Oncology, ISSN 0022-4790, E-ISSN 1096-9098, Vol. 125, no 8, p. 1202-1210Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background This study investigated the outcomes of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap using delayed primary retention suture (DPRS) to achieve superior breast esthetics.

Methods Between December 2010 and March 2021, patients who underwent NSM with DIEP flap were inset with or without a skin paddle (using DPRS) as Group A or B, respectively. Demographics, operative findings, complications, BREAST-Q questionnaire, and Manchester scar scale were compared between two groups.

Results Twelve patients underwent 12 unilateral reconstructions in Group A, while 12 patients underwent 13 DIEP flaps in Group B. There was no significant difference in demographics, ischemia time, flap-used weight and percentage, complications of hematoma, infection, re-exploration, partial flap loss, and total flap loss (All p > 0.05, respectively). At a mean 9 months of follow-up, the Breast-Q "Satisfaction with surgeon" domain was significant in Group B (p = 0.04). At a mean 12 months of follow-up, the overall Manchester scar scale of 10.3 in Group B was statistically superior to 12.6 in Group A (p = 0.04).

Conclusions The NSM with a DIEP flap using DPRS is a reliable and straightforward technique. It can provide greater cosmesis of the reconstructed breast mound in a single-stage procedure.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Wiley John Wiley & Sons, 2022. Vol. 125, no 8, p. 1202-1210
Keywords [en]
deep inferior epigastric perforator flap, delayed primary retention suture, flap monitoring, nipple-sparing mastectomy
National Category
Surgery
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-485613DOI: 10.1002/jso.26852ISI: 000770045900001PubMedID: 35298037OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-485613DiVA, id: diva2:1698995
Available from: 2022-09-26 Created: 2022-09-26 Last updated: 2024-01-15Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jso.26852

Authority records

Dimovska, Eleonora O. F.

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Dimovska, Eleonora O. F.
By organisation
Plastic Surgery
In the same journal
Journal of Surgical Oncology
Surgery

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 64 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf