Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/322
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWasiak, Jason-
dc.contributor.otherMurray, Alexandra-
dc.contributor.otherRozen, Warren Matthew-
dc.contributor.otherFerris, Scott-
dc.contributor.otherGrinsell, Damien-
dc.date2014-09-
dc.date.accessioned2015-08-24T01:18:04Z-
dc.date.available2015-08-24T01:18:04Z-
dc.date.issued2015-03-
dc.identifier.citationJ Reconstr Microsurg. 2015 Mar;31(3):179-86en_US
dc.identifier.issn0743-684Xen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11434/322-
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: The abdominal flap can be used in a stacked, double-pedicle configuration for unilateral breast reconstruction. Aided by preoperative mapping, this is a good option when a single-pedicle flap is deemed unsuitable. We present reliable outcomes using the stacked flap and a logical classification system for its use. METHODS: From 2008 to 2013, 18 patients underwent a stacked abdominal flap for unilateral breast reconstruction. Flaps utilized deep inferior epigastric (D) and superficial inferior epigastric (S) pedicle combinations. Preoperative computed tomography angiogram was performed on all patients. Medical records were reviewed for complications and clinical data, and a thorough clinical evaluation was performed on all patients at follow-up. Flaps were all double-pedicled, with the secondary pedicle anastomosed onto the primary pedicle (type 1 to 3) or onto a second recipient vessel (type 4). Flaps were then classified into groups, based on pedicle dominance and intraflap anastomosis. RESULTS: Twelve reconstructions were immediate and six delayed. Mean operative time was 7 hours, the most frequently used configuration being a type 1 DD, that is, secondary pedicle (D) anastomosed end-to-end onto the superior continuation of the primary pedicle (D). Average hospital stay was 6 days. There were no flap losses and minimal complications, and mean follow-up was 20 months. CONCLUSION: Use of this flap poses a greater challenge to the microsurgical breast reconstruction. We demonstrate its reliable use in women deemed unsuitable for a single-pedicle flap. Our structured system clarifies vascular options, and preoperative perforator mapping tools are essential to the success of this technique.en_US
dc.publisherThiemeen_US
dc.subjectUnilateral Breast Reconstructionen_US
dc.subjectDIEPen_US
dc.subjectMicrosurgical Breast Reconstructionen_US
dc.subjectPlastic Surgeryen_US
dc.subjectBurnsen_US
dc.subjectMammaplastyen_US
dc.subjectSurgery, Plasticen_US
dc.subjectBurns-Therapyen_US
dc.subjectAbdominal Flapen_US
dc.subjectSingle Pedicle Flapen_US
dc.subjectStacked Double Pedicle Flapen_US
dc.subjectStacked Abdominal Flapen_US
dc.subjectDeep Inferior Epigastricen_US
dc.subjectSuperficial Inferior Epigastricen_US
dc.subjectEpworth Radiation Oncology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.titleStacked abdominal flap for unilateral breast reconstructionen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1055/s-0034-1390165en_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleJournal of Reconstructive Microsurgeryen_US
dc.description.pubmedurihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25259672en_US
dc.description.affiliatesPlastic Surgery Department, St Vincent's Hospital, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesVictorian Adult Burns Service and School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash Universityen_US
dc.description.affiliatesThe Alfred Hospital, Commercial Road, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesPlastic Surgery Department, St Vincent's Private, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesPlastic Surgery Department, Western Hospital, Gordon Street, Footscray, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.type.studyortrialRetrospective studiesen_US
dc.type.contenttypeTexten_US
Appears in Collections:Radiation Oncology

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in Epworth are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.