4.4 Article

Donor-Site Morbidity and Quality of Life after Autologous Breast Reconstruction with PAP versus TMG Flap

Journal

CURRENT ONCOLOGY
Volume 29, Issue 8, Pages 5682-5697

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29080448

Keywords

breast cancer; mastectomy; autologous breast reconstruction; PAP flap; TMG flap; donor-site morbidity; quality of life

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Both TMG and PAP flaps are safe options for autologous breast reconstruction with minimal donor-site morbidity and high patient satisfaction. However, patients in the TMG group were more satisfied with the scar and its position.
The transverse myocutaneous gracilis (TMG) and the profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap are both safe choices for autologous breast reconstruction originating from the same donor region in the upper thigh. We aimed to compare the post-operative outcome regarding donor-site morbidity and quality of life. We included 18 patients who had undergone autologous breast reconstruction with a PAP flap (n = 27 flaps). Prospective evaluation of donor-site morbidity was performed by applying the same questionnaire that had already been established in a previous study evaluating TMG flap (n = 25 flaps) outcome, and results were compared. Comparison of the two patient groups showed equivalent results concerning patient-reported visibility of the donor-site scar and thigh symmetry. Still, the TMG group was significantly more satisfied with the scar (p = 0.015) and its position (p = 0.001). No difference was found regarding the ability to sit for prolonged periods. Donor-site wound complications were seen more frequently in the PAP group (29.6%) than in the TMG group (4.0%). Both groups expressed rather high satisfaction with their quality of life. Both flaps show minimal functional donor-site morbidity and high patient satisfaction. To minimize wound healing problems in PAP patients, thorough planning of the skin paddle is necessary.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available