Reply: Comparative Analysis of Single versus Stacked Free Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Single Center Experience.

Background As breast reconstructive microsurgeons increase their available flap techniques with experience, the need for stacked and multiple flaps may generate an improved aesthetic outcome. The authors present their institutional experience of using single versus stacked free flap breast reconstruction. Methods ONE THOUSAND SEVENTY: flaps were performed on 509 patients from 2010 to 2018 by two senior surgeons at a single university hospital. Three hundred eighty-eight flaps were either stacked profunda artery perforator (PAP) flaps, four-flap flaps [bilateral PAP plus bilateral deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap], or double-pedicle DIEP/superficial inferior epigastric perforator flaps. Six hundred eighty-two flaps were either unilateral or bilateral DIEP or PAP flap (one flap per breast). Demographics, patient comorbidities, and flap complications were compared between the two groups. Results Of the 509 patients, 359 underwent single DIEP or PAP flap (one flap per breast) and 150 patients underwent stacked free flaps. The stacked flap group had statistically lower body mass index, higher rates of radiation therapy, longer procedure time, smaller flaps, higher deep venous thrombosis rates, and higher take-back rates compared with the single flap group. There were no statistical differences in the rates of flap loss (2.2 percent in stacked flaps versus 1.1 percent in single flaps), wound complication, hematoma, or pulmonary embolism. Conclusions Autologous breast reconstruction is the gold standard for natural and durable breast reconstruction, often giving superior aesthetic outcomes and higher patient satisfaction. However, the true success of autologous breast reconstruction is limited to the amount of tissue available to provide total breast reconstruction. This study shows that stacked flap breast reconstruction is safe and has similar complication rates as single-flap breast reconstruction. Clinical question/level of evidence Therapeutic, III.

[1]  Bernard T. Lee,et al.  Evidence-Based Performance Measures for Autologous Breast Reconstruction: An American Society of Plastic Surgeons Quality Performance Measure Set. , 2020 .

[2]  Min-Jeong Cho,et al.  Clinical Decision Making Using CTA in Conjoined, Bipedicled DIEP and SIEA for Unilateral Breast Reconstruction , 2019, Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery.

[3]  R. Burgkart,et al.  Polydioxanone Threads for Facial Rejuvenation: Analysis of Quality Variation in the Market. , 2019, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[4]  J. A. Sørensen,et al.  Autologous versus implant-based breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of Breast-Q patient-reported outcomes. , 2019, Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS.

[5]  Min-Jeong Cho,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Single versus Stacked Free Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Single-Center Experience. , 2019, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[6]  A. Gassman,et al.  Stacked Profunda Artery Perforator Flap for Breast Reconstruction in Failed or Unavailable Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap , 2019, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[7]  A. Figus,et al.  A comparison of patient reported outcome measures in patients who received both DIEP flap and PAP flap breast reconstructions. , 2019, Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS.

[8]  B. van der Lei,et al.  Effectiveness, Longevity, and Complications of Facelift by Barbed Suture Insertion , 2018, Aesthetic surgery journal.

[9]  A. Figus,et al.  Upgrading the BREAST-Q questionnaire with donor site evaluation after PAP flap breast reconstruction. , 2018, Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS.

[10]  B. van der Lei,et al.  Thread-Lift Sutures: Still in the Lift? A Systematic Review of the Literature , 2018, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[11]  A. Gassman,et al.  101 Consecutive Profunda Artery Perforator Flaps in Breast Reconstruction: Lessons Learned with Our Early Experience , 2017, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[12]  A. Klassen,et al.  Breast Cancer and Reconstruction: Normative Data for Interpreting the BREAST-Q , 2017, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[13]  Wess A. Cohen,et al.  The BREAST-Q in surgical research: A review of the literature 2009-2015. , 2016, Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS.

[14]  J. Disa,et al.  Quality of Life and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Multicenter Comparison of Four Abdominally Based Autologous Reconstruction Methods , 2015, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[15]  G. D. de Bock,et al.  Which Breast Is the Best? Successful Autologous or Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Quality-of-Life Outcomes , 2015, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[16]  Robert L. Walton,et al.  Barbed Sutures: A Review of the Literature , 2008, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.