Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_732_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
51 Мб
Скачать
CHAPTER 10 Local Flap Techniques for Oncoplastic Breast Reconstruction
https://t.me/medicina_free
73
After the dissection of ap and pedicle is complete, a subcutaneous tunnel is dissected in the direction of the breast pocket to allow the transposition of the ap to the defect. e ap is left stapled to the mastectomy aps and covered with a sterile dressing before direct closure of the donor area. Two closed suction drains are placed into the harvest site of the LD muscle, and the donor site is closed in a layered fashion. Following closure of the posterior thorax, the patient is placed in the supine position with partial ex­ion at the waist to facilitate the ap inset and to optimally remodel the breast. During the inset of the ap, the cutane­ous island is positioned as low as possible to avoid visible scars in the neckline and cleavage area. On the other hand, the remnant muscle will be sutured to the superior mastec­tomy ap, being able to even roll partially over itself to give more volume and better projection to the upper quadrants of the breast.
Endoscopic LD
e constant anatomy, standardized technique, and good outcome have made the LD musculocutaneous ap one of the main workhorses in breast reconstruction for many years. Despite this, one of the main drawbacks to be taken into account is the long incision required in the donor area. According to Adams etal,6 approximately 22% of the patients whose breast reconstruction was performed with this technique dened the donor area scar as unacceptable. For this reason, dierent techniques have emerged with the goal of reducing the donor area incision size. e primary technique in use is based on the use of endoscopy. Endo­scopic harvest of the LD ap was popularized at the end of the 1990s; it was subsequently postulated by Pomel and Missana7 as a valid option for immediate reconstruction of patients undergoing skin sparing mastectomy, because this condition allowed harvesting the LD ap without the requirement of a cutaneous island.
Despite its proven advantages at the level of the donor area, this technique is not currently widespread because of the required training in the use of endoscopic instruments and a serious learning curve. Fullling the previously men­tioned requirements, it constitutes a reconstructive alterna­tive that is especially useful in patients with lumpectomy or quadrantectomy of lateral quadrants. Using the incisions created by the oncologic resection and/or nodal surgery, the operation can be performed simply with the patient in the decubitus position supine. us, by direct visualization through mentioned incisions, the anterior margin of the LD muscle is separated from the serratus anterior muscle. is will facilitate identication of the thoracodorsal neurovas­cular bundle and, in some cases, to divide the nerve.
Once these steps have been completed, the patient is positioned in the same manner as if a conventional LD ap was to be harvested except that it will be endoscopically har­vested. Several techniques have been described to create the optical eld, ranging from manual retractors and balloon­assisted methods, to carbon dioxide insuation. Once the
proper endoscopic exposure is ensured, the muscular dissec­tion is started in the suprafascial plane, to be continued in the deep plane afterward.
Once the exposure of the required muscular surface has been completed, the peripheral detachment of the muscle through the endoscopy is initiated. In some cases, especially those in which extensive aps are required, an incision of about 3 cm will be necessary at the ank level to release the most distal region of the ap. Once the LD ap has been released peripherally, its capacity for transposition to the defect is assessed, which can be increased due to its humeral detachment through direct visualization by previous axil­lary incision. Subsequently, the adaptation of the ap to the defect will be done as usual.
Despite dierences in techniques from dierent sur­geons, survival rates between traditional and endoscopic ap harvest are similar. e main dierences lie in the lower rate of complications at the level of the donor area that presents the endoscopic harvesting. Advantages of the endoscopic technique include less visible scar, lower rate of dehiscence, and less of a requirement for wound dressings in the donor area.
Although an incision of inferior size should allow pre­serving the subdermal and subcutaneous lymphatic plexus, endoscopic harvesting has not managed to reduce the rate of seroma formation, demonstrating an incidence similar to that of the conventional technique. 
Locoregional Perforator Flaps
Introduction
With the standardization of microsurgical techniques, per­forator aps have shown their capacity to be considered as a rst level therapeutic alternative not only for breast reconstruction, but also for dierent parts of the body. eir principal benet is the preservation of motor func­tionality of subjacent muscle and to signicantly reduce donor site morbidity.8 According to the Ghent consensus in 2002, these microsurgical aps are numbered depend­ing on the main artery from which perforator vessels arise. Because the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) ap technique is globally accepted as the gold standard for breast reconstruction with perforator aps, local perforator aps should also be taken into account as viable options in cases of nding vessels of adequate caliber and perfusion capacity.
As with the previous local aps that have been reviewed, breast and plastic surgeons should discuss and plan for the size of the anticipated partial mastectomy defect and the location of the incisions before the intervention. Although CT angiography is not necessary for musculocutaneous aps, the identication of perforator location and the harvest of perforator aps is facilitated with the preopera­tive assessment of CT angiography or magnetic resonance (MR) angiography (Table 10.4). ese scans predict the presence and course of perforating vessels, optimize the time of intraoperative dissection, and reduce the rate of complications. 
SECTION II Oncoplastic Breast Surgery – Surgical Techniques
https://t.me/medicina_free
74
TABLE
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Perforator Flaps
10.4
Advantages Disadvantages
They cover the same skin surface as LD musculocutaneous flap Complex, occasionally stressful surgery, that requires a long
learning curve
There is no muscle atrophy Final volume is more predictable
than with the LD flap
Lower complication rate in donor area In some cases, we delete the potential option to perform an
Less postoperative pain, shorter period of hospital stay, and
faster social rehabilitation
Maintenance of motor capacity, faster rehabilitation because
absence of functional limitation
High pliability that allows an adequate breast contour with
optimal aesthetic results
Requirement of microsurgical material
ipsilateral LD flap in case of local recurrence
Sometimes does not contribute the desired volume and
requires complementary procedures like fat grafting
Outcome is more affected by patient’s comorbidities (Radio-
therapy [RT ] on the axillary zone, smoking, atherosclerosis)
Thoracodorsal Artery Perforator Flap (Video 10.1)
e TDAP ap is a fasciocutaneous ap based on perfora­tor vessels depending on the thoracodorsal pedicle, which can be used as a pedicled or as a free ap for several indica­tions. Although initially described years ago as a pedicle ap,9 its use had not been indicated as a reconstructive option for lumpectomy and mastectomy defects until microsurgical dissection techniques became common. Currently, it is one of the most commonly performed reconstructive options in the setting of autologous tissue, especially when the surgical team includes an experienced microsurgeon. e TDAP ap is primarily indicated in patients with defects at the level of lateral quadrants of the breast and when the use of free microsurgical aps is undesirable (Case B, Figs. 10.7–10.10).
In comparison with its musculocutaneous counter­part, the TDAP ap has the advantage of preserving the integrity of the LD muscle as well as the motor nerve branch, so that muscle function is not aected. In addi­tion, when the LD muscle remains in situ, minimal dead space is generated; thus, the incidence of seroma forma­tion at the donor site is much lower. Postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, and recovery time are generally much shorter. 
Flap Characteristics
Vascularization: originally described based on musculo-
cutaneous perforator branches of the thoracodorsal ped-
icle. e pedicle is located on the lateral thoracic region,
where other large arteries such as lateral thoracic artery
or its accessory branch are found. is rich vascular net-
work allows nding septocutaneous perforators, present
in more than 80% of cases,10 depending on any of these
three trunks to be able to raise the ap.
Diameter of the perforator vessels: 0.8–1.5 mm
Length of the pedicle: 7–10 cm
Fig. 10.7 Case B: Preoperative pictures. Notice the markings of the
planned defect on the lateral aspect of the breast.
Approximate maximum dimensions of skin paddle: 20 × 12 cm
Intraoperative position of the patient: the same posi­tion and intraoperative changes as in the harvesting of the traditional LD ap 
Preoperative Preparation
As with the LD ap, a pinch test is performed to calculate the approximate dimensions of the cutaneous island, if it is required, that will allow for direct closure of the donor area.
To facilitate ap harvest, the mapping of the perfora-
tors using eco-Doppler performed with the patient under
CHAPTER 10 Local Flap Techniques for Oncoplastic Breast Reconstruction
https://t.me/medicina_free
Fig. 10.8 Case B: Intraoperative picture showing the piece of resec-
tion, the defect to be covered, and the markings of the anterior thora­codorsal perforators.
75
Fig. 10.9 Case B: Postoperative pictures at 3 month postop.
anesthesia on the operating table in the proper position can identify the location of the perforators. It is important to identify exact perforator location rather than the location of the primary thoracodorsal artery and vein. Delineation of these perforators can then be used to design the cutane­ous paddle of the TDAP ap. With perforator mapping, the skin territory can usually be positioned at a more anterior level than expected, that is, a few centimeters ahead of the free edge of the LD muscle. e purpose of this is to be able to base the ap on the septocutaneous perforators that sometimes exist between the serratus anterior and the LD muscles. In addition to the perforators, the usual landmarks of harvesting the LD ap should be marked to design the cutaneous island, centered on the perforators previously identied by CT angiography and Doppler. 
Surgical Technique
ere are dierent methods to plan the harvesting of the TDAP ap. Some groups advocate beginning the dissection
Fig. 10.10 Case B: Postoperative pictures at 3 month postop. View
of the scar on the donor site.
in the anterior margin of the ap to try to locate the septo­cutaneous perforators at this level. When present, this will facilitate the dissection and signicantly reduce intraopera­tive time. In general, the most extended way to harvest the ap is starting the dissection from distal to proximal and from medial to lateral (advancing toward the free margin of m. latissimus dorsi). Once the perforator has been iden­tied and its viability has been proven, the design of the cutaneous island can be modied respectively. It has been described in the literature and clinically demonstrated11 that a single perforator with adequate caliber and a palpable pulse is sucient to vascularize the TDAP ap even when it includes a relatively large skin paddle.
e vertical branch usually sends between three and
four perforators, which are preferable compared with the perforators from the horizontal branch, primarily because perforator location and number are more predictable (Fig. 10.11). us, the rst of perforators usually emerge from the fascia of the LD muscle about 8–10 cm from the posterior axillary fold, whereas the remainder of the perforators appear progressively every 3–4 cm and follow the distal course of the vertical branch. All of the perfora­tors are usually located about 2–3 cm posterior to the free margin of the LD muscle. If identied, the perforators from the vertical branch will have a shorter intramuscular course to the main pedicle compared with the perforat­ing vessels of the horizontal branch. Once the dominant perforator is identied, which is usually surrounded by a semi-areolar/adipose plane, it should be followed in the direction of the main pedicle using microsurgical dis­section techniques. e perforator itself should remain attached to the muscle along its posterior surface to avoid
SECTION II Oncoplastic Breast Surgery – Surgical Techniques
https://t.me/medicina_free
76
Fig. 10.11 Intraoperative picture of a couple of thoracodorsal perfora-
tors in a pedicled TDAP flap.
“kinking” and sudden movements on itself. During the dissection, it is necessary to cauterize or clip the small vascular tributaries; however, all eorts should be made to preserve the nerve branches to the muscle. In the event of small caliber perforators, it is recommended not to skel­etonize the vessel and to keep a muscle cu around it as protection.
Several types of muscle-sparing TDAP have been described according to the size of the muscle cu we take.12 Once the perforator has been dissected to the point of origin from its pedicle, it can be dissected proximally to add more length as needed. Once the dissection of the perforator and the pedicle has been completed, the ap is tunneled between the LD muscle that has been split to allow the ap to be transposed to the partial mastectomy defect where it is temporarily inset for further remodel­ing. If skin coverage is not required, the ap can be par­tially or completely de-epithelialized and buried; however, many surgeons prefer to leave a small exteriorized skin for monitoring.
Intercostal Artery Perforator Flaps (ICAP: LICAP, AICAP)
Vascularization: perforator branches of the vascular
intercostal arch existing between aorta and internal mam-
mary vessels. is arch runs beneath the inferior border
of the rib where it continues giving perforator vessels all
along entire length of the rib. For breast reconstruction
the aps based on lateral perforators, LICAP can be use-
ful, as well as on the anterior perforators (AICAP). Later
ones sometimes emerge directly from the internal mam-
mary vessels. Running adjacent to the intercostal nerve,
they can be harvested with them, constituting “sensate
aps.”
Diameter of the perforator vessels: 0.8 mm
Pedicle length: 2–5 cm
Approximate maximum dimensions of skin paddle:
20 × 10 cm
Intraoperative position of the patient: supine decu­bitus with the arm in abduction of 90 degrees (AICAP, LICAP), although in certain occasions the LICAP will require the same intraoperative position for the LD ap harvesting. Flaps based on perforating branches of the intercostal
arteries are relatively infrequent for a variety of reasons. e indications are limited because they have short vascular pedicles and have the potential to result in a pneumothorax. Both of these factors make these intercostal aps less ideal for partial breast reconstruction. ere are several varia­tions of intercostal aps, depending on the region where its perforators emerge (dorsal, lateral, or anterior). For breast reconstruction, the LICAP and the AICAP may be useful and desirable because the design of these aps extends along the inframammary fold and the scars are easily hidden in the line beneath the brassiere. e most common indica­tion is for the reconstruction of lumpectomy or quadrantec­tomy defects in patients with ptotic small- to medium-sized breasts.13 Unlike the TDAP ap, intercostal artery based aps have the advantage of not requiring positional changes and to maintain the vascularity of the thoracodorsal pedicle in the event of a tumor recurrence and reoperation.
Before harvesting, it is highly recommended to identify
the perforator vessels preoperatively with CT angiography or Doppler. Generally, the major concentration of perfora­tors are found between the fth and eighth ribs, and most often between the sixth and seventh. e perforators for the LICAP ap are located approximately 3 cm anterior to the free margin of LD muscle, whereas the perforators for the AICAP emerge between 1–4 cm medial to the sternal bor­der. e dissection usually starts on the lateral aspect of the ap and, after identication of the perforator, it continues with transmuscular dissection to the main pedicle. e dis­section proceeds through LD and/or serratus anterior mus­cle in the case of the LICAP ap and through the pectoralis major muscle in the case of the AICAP ap. Once the origin of the perforator is identied, a pedicle length of 3–4 cm is usually achieved. is length can be increased by extending the dissection through the intercostal muscles. Microsurgi­cal dissection in the intercostal space is not usually recom­mended because it is tedious and potentially dangerous for the perforator given the diculty of the narrow eld. Once the desired pedicle length is obtained, the ap is rotated as a propeller or advanced in a V-Y fashion to cover the defect. e incision can be closed primarily and concealed beneath the bra line.
IMAP
e IMAP ap is based on parasternal perforators from the internal mammary artery that sends musculocutaneous per­forators from the rst to sixth intercostal spaces. ese per­forators, especially the larger ones, are located in the second and third intercostal spaces and will be accompanied by a vein and a sensitive branch of the anterior intercostal nerve; thus, it is possible to raise a sensate ap. e usefulness of the IMAP ap as a method of reconstruction for the partial
CHAPTER 10 Local Flap Techniques for Oncoplastic Breast Reconstruction
https://t.me/medicina_free
77
mastectomy defect is relatively limited, given the distortion of the contralateral breast (which is the donor area); there­fore, its use is relatively limited. e IMAP ap is rarely used as a rst choice; however, it is useful when confronted with a defect located in medial or superior quadrants of the breast When used for the aected breast, breast reduction techniques should be considered for the contralateral or donor breast to ensure an acceptable cosmetic outcome. 
Characteristics of the Flap
Vascularization: perforating branches of internal mam­mary artery. After crossing the intercostal muscles and the m. pectoralis major, they continue suprafascially in a lateral direction.
Diameter of the perforating vessels: 0.8–1 mm
Pedicle length: 1–2 cm
Approximate maximum dimensions of skin paddle: 20 × 8 cm
Intraoperative position of the patient: supine 
Surgical Technique
Like any other perforator ap, it requires preoperative iden­tication by CT angiography or Doppler. e design of the cutaneous island will be based on the perforators and the dissection of the ap is initiated from lateral to medial. e subfascial plane allows improving viability of the ap, because the perforators travel supercial to it, so it is advis­able to stay in that plane whenever possible. Perforators tend to emerge less than 2 cm from the sternal margin, so as the dissection gets closer to it, extreme caution should be exer­cised. Once the perforator is identied, it is recommended to keep a small fascial cu around it for protection. e dis­section proceeds throughout the depth of the muscle in a transmuscular mode, which adds diculty to the procedure, because the perforator passes adjacent to the perichondrium.
In cases where additional pedicle length is required, cos-
tal cartilage can be removed, and the internal mammary ves­sels can be further dissected. 
The Importance of Timing: When to Perform Breast Reconstruction with Local Flap Techniques in Breast-Conserving Therapy
Breast-conserving surgery advocates have conrmed that tumor resection combined with subsequent radiotherapy has demonstrated that local recurrence rates and overall sur­vival of patients is similar when comparing BCT to mas­tectomy. ere is some degree of controversy surrounding the optimal timing for when reconstruction of the partial mastectomy defect should occur. Should we wait until the adjuvant radiotherapy is completed to reconstruct the defect? Will immediate reconstruction interfere with adju­vant treatment or postoperative oncologic screening?
Fortunately, the controversies surrounding immediate reconstruction of the partial mastectomy defect have been resolved. ere are several reasons that support immediate reconstruction of the partial mastectomy defect.
• ere is no scientic evidence contraindicating the use
of neoadjuvant therapy before immediate reconstruc-
tion, nor does the immediate reconstruction itself cause a
delay in the start of the adjuvant therapy, if necessary. On
the other hand, direct closure under tension due to the
fact that no new tissue has been added can cause dehis-
cence, steatonecrosis, and other minor local complica-
tions that may delay the start of adjuvant therapy.
• Delayed reconstruction of a previously irradiated tis-
sue will have a higher complication rate compared with
immediate reconstruction before radiotherapy, not only
in the dissection of the pedicle or perforator, but also in
the capacity of the ap to be adequately inset and for the
surgeon to optimally rearrange and remodel the remain-
ing soft tissue. e ability of the surgeon to optimally
perform the inset and remodel the breast is enhanced in
the immediate setting because the tissues are soft, supple,
and non-irradiated; therefore, complications are reduced
and aesthetic outcome is enhanced. is will improve the
consequent emotional and psychological benets to the
patient.
• Avoiding patch eect: Delayed reconstruction following
irradiation of the remaining breast tissue will compro-
mise its quality because of the deleterious eects of the
radiation. Reconstruction following radiation often will
result in a patch-like eect due to the transfer of non-
irradiated tissue into the breast. is will make a notice-
able dierence in texture and skin quality, be associated
with more healing mishaps, and result in complications
in up to 50% of patients.
• A benet of radiation therapy following oncoplas-
tic reconstruction is that it may improve the aesthetic
appearance of some scars, as in the case of the treatment
of refractory keloids.
A great many factors to ensure success of oncoplastic sur­gery have been discussed; however, this will no longer be true if safe oncologic margins are not achieved. us, the oncologic aspect of oncoplastic surgery must always be pri­oritized and the reconstruction delayed a few days (delayed­immediate reconstruction) if there is uncertainty or doubt intraoperatively about the margin. 
14
Conclusions
Part of the complications and poor results historically attributed to breast-conserving surgery come from the dilemma between having to balance an oncologic resec­tion within safe margins, while trying to preserve as much tissue as possible to close the defect with guarantees that the overall aesthetic appearance of the breast would not suer.
is is not a negligible fact, because it has even been shown to aect tumor recurrence rates. ere are documented
SECTION II Oncoplastic Breast Surgery – Surgical Techniques
https://t.me/medicina_free
78
series of cases treated with oncoplastic mammary reduc­tion techniques with higher recurrence rates than would be expected.
15
is dicult communion between tumor resection and breast tissue conservation is attenuated when the possibility of carrying out immediate breast reconstruction with local aps becomes a reality. Knowing in advance that the gener­ated defect will be reconstructed with autologous tissue can allow the surgical oncologist to be disinhibited by the size of the resection, and to make more generous oncologic mar­gins that ensure low rates of local recurrence.16 In addition, immediate reconstruction stimulates the multidisciplinary cooperation between the surgical oncologist and the plastic surgeon to decide the therapeutic attitude of each case in an individualized way, and to be able to provide the reconstruc­tive options that lead to a positive result for both the patient and the professionals involved in the process.
Local aps for breast reconstruction are an essential ther­apeutic tool that allows for the expansion of patients who can undergo immediate reconstruction. It is useful for those who are not candidates for total breast reconstruction and free tissue transfer, and provides a nice option for women who choose partial mastectomy. erefore, the notion of breast reconstruction with local aps can and should have a privileged place in the therapeutic arsenal of any plastic surgeon in cases where its use is indicated.
References
1. Berry MG, Fitoussi AD, Curnier A, Couturaud B, Salmon RJ.
Oncoplastic breast surgery: a review and systematic approach. Br J Plast Surg. 2010;63(8):1233–1243.
2. Clough KB, Cuminet J, Fitoussi A, Nos C, Mosseri V. Cos-
metic sequelae after conservative treatment for breast cancer: classication and results of surgical correction. Breast Cancer. 2005;12:16–20.
3. Silva Neto MP, Adão O, Scandiuzzi D, Chaem LH. e rhom-
boid ap for immediate breast reconstruction after quadran­tectomy and axillary dissection. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119: 1134–1136.
4. Chatuverdi S. Subaxillary dermocutaneous fat ap for recon­struction of the upper outer quadrant of the breast following conservation surgery. Br J Surg. 2004;91(1):69–71.
5. Munhoz AM, Montag E, Arruda E, Pellarin L, Filassi JR, Piato JR, et al. Assessment of immediate conservative breast surgery reconstruction: a classication system of defects revisited and an algorithm for selecting the appropriate technique. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121(3):716e27.
6. Adams Jr WP, Lipschitz AH, Ansari M, etal. Functional donor site morbidity following latissimus dorsi muscle ap transfer. Ann Plast Surg. 2004;53:6–11.
7. Pomel C, Missana MC. Endoscopic muscular latissimus dorsi ap harvesting for immediate breast reconstruction after skin sparing mastectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2003;29:127–231.
8. Hamdi M, Frene B De. Pedicled perforator aps in breast recon­struction. 2006;1(212):73–78.
9. Angrigiani C, Grilli D, Siebert J. Latissimus dorsi musculocuta­neous ap without muscle. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;96:1608.
10. Rowsell AR, Davies DM, Eisenberg N, etal. e anatomy of the subscapular-thoracodorsal arterial system: study of 100 cadaver dissections. Br J Plast Surg. 1984;37(4):574.
11. Hamdi M, Van Landuyt K, Hijjawi JB, Roche N, Blondeel P, Monstrey S. Surgical technique in pedicled thoracodorsal artery perforator aps: a clinical experience with 99 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121(5):1632–1641.
12. Hamdi M, Van Landuyt K, Monstrey S, Blondeel P. Pedicled perforator aps in breast reconstruction: a new concept. Br J Plast Surg. 2004;57:531.
13. Carrasco Lopez C, Julian Ibanez JF, Vil a J, etal. Anterior intercos­tal artery perforator ap in immediate breast reconstruction: ana­tomical study and clinical application. Microsurgery. 2017;00:1–8.
14. Losken A, Elwood ET, Styblo TM, etal. e role of reduction mammaplasty in reconstructing partial mastectomy defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109:968e75.
15. Kronowitz SJ, Kuerer HM, Buchholz TA, et al. A manage­ment algorithm and practical oncoplastic surgical techniques for repairing partial mastectomy defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:1631e47.
16. Losken A, Hart AM, Chatterjee A. Updated evidence on the onco­plastic approach to breast conservation therapy. Plastic Reconstr Surg. 2017;140 (5S Advances in Breast Reconstruction):14S– 22S.
11
https://t.me/medicina_free
Free Flap Techniques
MOUSTAPHA HAMDI AND RANDY DE BAERDEMAEKER
Introduction
Reconstruction after partial mastectomy is an evolving aspect of plastic surgery. Dierent modalities are continu­ally being developed to maximize patient survival while minimizing the treatment’s morbidity. main options for the management of primary breast cancer are total mastectomy and lumpectomy with radiation. Due to advances in imaging and treatment algorithms, complex partial breast deformities are more and more common.
Breast conservation therapy (BCT) may be considered a mainstay therapy for early stage breast cancer and an onco­logic equivalent to mastectomy. e most important dier­ence that was identied between BCT and mastectomy was a signicantly higher rate of local recurrence after BCT. is was, however, only found in a minority of the randomized controlled trials, relevance to current practice given the lack of microscopic margin control in those trials. In recent literature, although confounding by severity and residual confounding cannot be excluded, better long-term breast cancer specic survival is showed for BCT than mastectomy. With more contem­porary diagnostics and therapies, several subgroups may benet from BCT.
Even in patients with locally advanced breast can­cer (LABC) rst treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT), the prevalence of local recurrence after breast con­serving surgery (BCS) was 9.2% versus 8.3% in the mas­tectomy group, without signicant dierence. e 5-year local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) rate was lower in the mastectomy group than in the BCS group, but no signi­cant dierence was found between the two groups. So we can conclude BCS after NCT to be safe in terms of local recurrence and LRFS even in LABC. Shrinking tumors with NCT provides the opportunity to apply BCS with no detri­ment to outcome. BCT might be preferred in most breast cancer patients when both BCT and mastectomy are suit­able.7 BCT comprises partial breast resection, lymph node dissection, and whole breast irradiation. No breast cancer subgroup can be spared postoperative radiation after BCT.
3,4,5
and the dierences are of questionable
6
1,2
Currently, the two
8
Although the oncologic outcome is well dened, the ulti­mate aesthetic outcome after BCT remains highly variable. Conventional reports in the radiation oncology literature indicate unsatisfactory appearance in more than a third of patients following BCT at late reporting by patients or radia­tion oncologists.9 In fact, 50% of post-BCT aesthetic results were only considered to be fair or poor when assessed by a plastic surgeon. In relative terms, the size of the tumor exci­sion must be compared with the size of the aected breast to estimate the nal aesthetic impact. e larger the breast, the more easily it accommodates larger resections up to a certain size. Small to medium breasts are far less tolerant of increasing resection sizes than large breasts. Cosmetic out­come after BCT is inuenced by breast and tumor size and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Although several reconstructive options are available, the optimal method for revision surgery has not yet been determined. Future studies are necessary to obtain evidence-based guidelines for recon­structive surgery after BCT.
Oncoplastic surgery is a combination of breast conserva­tive surgery and partial breast reconstruction.11 ere is an unmet demand for partial breast reconstruction both imme­diate and delayed, with an opportunity to advocate and increase awareness on behalf of patients undergoing BCT. e number of patients requiring partial breast reconstruc­tion can be comparable to the number of patients looking for reconstruction after skin-sparing mastectomy.
10
12
Timing of Partial Breast Reconstruction
Despite the established role of free aps in breast recon­struction after mastectomy, their role in partial breast recon­struction is not well dened. is chapter reviews the use of free ap techniques for immediate, delayed-immediate, and delayed partial breast reconstruction. Most recon­structive surgeons believe that immediate reconstruction provides superior aesthetic outcomes with fewer complica­tions; however, it is important to be aware of the rate of re-excisions for positive margins by the surgeons perform­ing the tumor resections. If this rate is unacceptably high,
79
SECTION II Oncoplastic Breast Surgery – Surgical Techniques
https://t.me/medicina_free
80
then reconstruction should be delayed. Our preference is to perform immediate reconstruction with either breast remodeling (displacement techniques) or pedicled aps (replacement techniques). Clinical outcomes and expert opinions support this approach.
13,14
ese sources suggest that post-BCT breast contour deformities are primarily due to a surgical defect that is inappropriately corrected and sec­ondarily from the injury induced by radiotherapy. Radio­therapy tends to exacerbate the surgically created deformity. Utilizing the principles of oncoplastic surgery, the aesthetic impact of BCT can be minimized by lling the unfavorable resection cavity with local or distant tissues before admin­istering radiation. Immediate reconstruction has denite advantages over delayed reconstruction, as lower compli­cation rates and substantially more straightforward cor­rections can be expected because the surgical eld has not received prior irradiation with its widespread implications for tissue injury and scarring.
14,15
e possibility of includ­ing free aps in the armamentarium of the plastic surgeon performing partial breast reconstruction allows the onco­logic surgeon to do wider excisions and avoid reinterven­tions for positive margins or local recurrence. In addition, it provides the freedom to oer BCT to patients in situations where the defect is expected to be signicant.
11
An alternative to immediate oncoplastic surgery is “delayed-immediate” reconstruction, where the reconstruc­tion is performed after nal pathology clearance but before radiation. is approach may be more suitable when vol­ume replacement techniques are required using pedicled aps; However, it must be the standard approach when free aps are used. e use of a free ap for immediate partial breast reconstruction has been scarcely described in litera-
16,17
ture.
Many plastic surgeons feel that sacricing the best available tissue for total breast reconstruction such as the abdominal free aps is not ideal for immediate or delayed­immediate partial breast reconstruction for a variety of rea­sons. Free aps are a more demanding procedure and are often dicult to be combined with lumpectomy because of logistic and organizational issues. Moreover, it is more benecial for the patient to keep this option available when required for salvation in case of recurrence and subsequent need for mastectomy or failure of BCT. erefore, the focus of this chapter describing the use of free ap options will only be in situations of delayed reconstruction.
of the nipple–areolar complex (NAC), (II) localized de­ciency of parenchyma and/or skin, (III) generalized breast contracture with no localized defects, and (IV) severe dam­age with heavily scarred parenchyma and skin. Clough etal have altered this classication by reordering and combining groups, emphasizing reconstructive choices and including comparison with the opposite breast.19 ey classied BCT deformity into three types that include: (I) deformity of the aected breast with no contour defects and leading to asym­metry with the contralateral breast, (II) deformity requiring delayed partial reconstruction, and (III) severe deformity requiring mastectomy and whole breast reconstruction. In clinical applications, these classications help to clarify the deformities that typically result when BCT is performed under suboptimal conditions. e classication schema also guides us in reconstruction with emphasis on identifying what is missing or disordered, and on seeking a reasonable match between the two breasts.
When these post-BCT deformities occur, delayed partial breast reconstruction must be considered. We consider these cases to be dicult and fraught with potential problems on three separate fronts. First, these patients often present to us with ongoing disappointment about their breast appearance and with higher cosmetic expectations than when they were in the primary cancer treatment phase. Second, breasts pre­viously treated with BCT present limited options for recon­struction due to reduced breast volume, scarring, distorted anatomy, and disturbed vascularity. ird, post-radiation changes must be approached with caution, as correction is technically dicult and results in complications that are highly unpredictable.20 Studies have estimated the compli­cation rate to be as high as 50%15 and the nal aesthetic result to be poor19 when extensive tissue rearrangement is performed in the previously irradiated breast. Due to these serious concerns, we limit post-BCT reconstruction to con­tralateral symmetrisation procedures, ipsilateral local aps, or scar revisions requiring minimal dissection of the aected breast. Specic ipsilateral options include importing of dis­tant tissues using pedicled or free aps, as well as lipolling to correct the skin and/or parenchymal deciencies. Before performing delayed partial breast reconstruction, an onco­logic update consisting of physical examination and breast imaging is required to conrm the absence of recurrence. 
Indications of Delayed Partial Breast Reconstruction
If immediate reconstruction is not performed in cases with unfavorable resection defects, signicant breast deformi­ties will likely manifest following completion of the BCT regimen. ese deformities, volume loss, distortion and brosis, have been stratied by two major classications. Berrino etal were the rst to classify post-BCT deformities by identifying the morphology of the deformity and then referencing this to select a technique for correction.18 ey described the following deformity types: (I) displacement
Patient Selection
e success of the oncoplastic procedure depends on the size of the cancer, the anatomical position, and the volume of resection needed to achieve clear margins in relation to the volume of the breast. e choice of the technique used depends on many factors, including the extent of resection, the time of surgery, the breast size and tumor location, and patient preferences (Fig. 11.1).
With BCT, the NAC is usually preserved, but a signi­cant number of patients have resulting deformity and asym­metry. ere are two fundamental surgical techniques for
Breast defect
https://t.me/medicina_free
volume
CHAPTER 11 Free Flap Techniques
81
Defect >30% of
the breast
Mastectomy Small breast Large breast
Free flap
reconstruction
Pedicled flap
Defect up to 30%
of the breast
Bilateral breast
remodeling
(Displacement
techniques)
Fig. 11.1 An algorithm to partial breast reconstruction.
partial breast reconstruction: volume displacement and vol­ume replacement. In contrast to volume displacement tech­niques, volume replacement techniques are technically more dicult and are typically used in patients with a low body mass index (BMI) with small- to moderate-sized breasts or when the tumor-to-breast ratio is large and the remaining breast tissue is insucient for adequate tissue rearrangement. Volume replacement with the use of non-breast local or dis­tant aps provides both tissue for the lling of the glandular defect and the skin deciency of the reconstructed breast. 
Preoperative History and Considerations
Surgeons performing free ap techniques for partial breast reconstruction should consider the aesthetic subunits, ana­tomical landmarks, and breast proportions and shape to achieve a pleasing outcome. Preoperative evaluation of the patient and her breasts must be standard and detailed.
e examination must include:
• General quality of the breast: evaluation of breast skin, elasticity, thickness, scars, and any dening marks such as tattoos, stretch marks, contour irregularities, and previ­ous breast surgery and/or radiation
• Palpation for masses or abnormalities in the breast paren­chyma, nipple inspection, and detailed documentation of breast sensation
• Breast shape, volume, position, grade of ptosis
• e base and width of the breast, the width of the NAC, the height of the nipple, and the distance from the ster­nal notch, midline, and inframammary crease
• e NAC position or distortion
Defect 0–20% of
the breast
Local flap Glandular flap
• Number and location of aected quadrants
• Status of the contralateral breast
• Dierent body types, skin laxity, and fat distribution are important factors in the decision-making process of free ap selection Preoperatively, incision lines and preservation of the
NAC should be discussed with the oncologic surgeon and patient. e estimation of the defect size after tumor resec­tion and breast size-to-tumor ratio is a guideline to the choice of the reconstructive method. Immediate correction of asymmetry by a contralateral mastopexy or reduction should also be discussed (Table 11.1).
Preoperative evaluation should include the same work-up
as for any other free ap autologous breast reconstruction technique. On physical examination, the skin of the donor site region is inspected for scarring, previous incisions, and estimation of tissue bulk with a pinch test. 
Indications and Contraindications
Our algorithm for recruiting distant tissues for partial breast reconstruction is to turn rst to pedicled aps and then to free aps if pedicled aps are insucient or unavail­able. Conventional pedicled ap options include the latis­simus dorsi (LD) muscle or myocutaneous ap and the transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) ap. ese have been shown to be perfectly suitable for breast reconstruction following irradiation, with the accepted caveats of higher complication rates and poorer aesthetic results.20 e muscular component of the aps is transferred in a denervated state, so any attempt to utilize muscle for
SECTION II Oncoplastic Breast Surgery – Surgical Techniques
https://t.me/medicina_free
82
TABLE
Preoperative Considerations
11.1
Incision lines
The ability for nipple–areolar preservation
Estimation of the required flap volume
Status of contralateral breast: no surgery versus mastopexy/reduction or prophylactic mastectomy
parenchymal replacement must include substantial overcor­rection to account for future denervation atrophy. Despite good results with the TRAM ap, we strongly discourage its use for partial breast reconstruction due to concern that this tissue may be needed in the future for reconstruction in the event of completion mastectomy for local breast cancer recurrence, or after primary mastectomy for cancer of the contralateral breast.
14,19,21
With the development of pedi­cled perforator aps for partial breast reconstruction, more options and lower donor site morbidity through muscle­sparing are now available when a large amount of tissue is needed.
14,22
A particular anatomical limitation to the use of pedi­cled aps for partial breast reconstruction must be noted. Laterally based pedicled aps (i.e., LD, lateral intercostal artery perforator (LICaP), thoracodorsal artery perforator (TDaP)) generally are not suitable for reconstruction of large defects of the medial breast quadrants due to insuf­cient reach and intervening healthy breast tissue. Although this is a recognized limitation, only a few reports acknowl­edge this.
14,15,23
e TRAM reaches the medial breast quad­rants easily; however, its use for partial breast reconstruction must be discouraged because this eliminates the use of the abdominal wall ap for a local recurrence or a new tumor in the contralateral breast as previously discussed. In addition, there is the risk of donor site morbidity such as a bulge or hernia. A solution for the donor site morbidity might be the use of a superior epigastric artery perforator (SEaP) ap; however, this still utilizes the abdomen that may be needed in the future.
24
Another option for women with smaller breasts is to use retropectoral implants in conjunction with tissue rearrange­ment. However the frequent use of postoperative radiation in patients undergoing BCT increases the risk of capsule contracture. For medial defects, it will also be quite dicult to position the implant correctly. Also there is no replace­ment of skin with this approach.
23,25
Among the limited indications for free ap reconstruc­tion of partial breast defects we nd patients who are likely to have a poor cosmetic result of BCT, due to high tumor/ breast ratio or medially or inferiorly based tumors. In the senior author’s experience, indications for free aps are
genuine but limited to delayed free ap reconstruction of partial mastectomy defects that include:
• Severe breast deformity (Clough Grade III) when non­abdominal pedicled aps are inadequate or unavailable (e.g., large need for skin replacement).
• Large breast deformity (Clough Grade II) in the medial quadrants.
• In conjunction with completion mastectomy for dicult tumor control or major glandular brosis postirradiation (Berrino Grade IV).
• As part of treatment consisting of contralateral mastec­tomy (therapeutic or prophylactic) and correction of ipsilateral post-BCT deformity.
• With aesthetic abdominoplasty procedure in a patient with long term follow-up and no further risk of recur­rence or developing a new breast cancer.
• After prior mastectomy and immediate ap reconstruc­tion with unsatisfactory results due to tumor recurrence or fat necrosis following radiotherapy In the delayed correction of a post-BCT deformity, when-
ever a free ap is an option, completion mastectomy should be considered, especially in patients with a high probability of subsequent cancers (multicentric disease, BRCA muta­tions, strong family history, suspicious magnetic resonance imaging ndings on contralateral breast, unfavorable cancer oncotype) or patients who have a history of prior radiation therapy. e goal of the reconstructive procedure is to pro­vide breast symmetry in an oncologically safe manner. Partial breast reconstruction is sometimes required in non-oncologic cases to correct congenital or secondary breast deformities. 
Operative Approach
Principles
e principles of using free tissue transfer for post-BCT deformity are summarized in Table 11.2. 
Preoperative Planning
• orough preoperative consultation is essential to explain the surgical plan, expected results, and potential high