4.5 Article

Oncoplastic surgery with omental flap reconstruction: a study of 200 cases

Journal

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
Volume 162, Issue 2, Pages 267-274

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-017-4124-9

Keywords

Omental flap; Laparoscopy; Oncoplastic surgery; Breast-conserving surgery; Breast reconstruction

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There are several small case series on use of a laparoscopically harvested omental flap (LHOF) for breast reconstruction. However, the long-term oncological safety and clinical benefits of the LHOF remain uncertain, especially in use of the flap in oncoplastic breast surgery. A retrospective chart review was performed for 200 patients who underwent oncoplastic breast surgery using a LHOF at our institution from April 2002 to March 2016. Laparoscopy-associated complications, local recurrence, and cosmetic outcomes were evaluated. Most of the patients underwent partial breast reconstruction immediately after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). The success rate of laparoscopic harvesting of the omental flap was 99.5%. The rate of complications was 12.0% and laparoscopy-associated complications occurred in four cases (2.0%). The rate of a positive margin was 6.5%. Two cases (1.0%) had local recurrence during a median follow-up period of 90 months. In 24 patients (12.0%), the volume of the flap was insufficient. When applied to total reconstruction, volume insufficiency occurred in 32.6% of patients. Cosmetic outcomes were mostly satisfactory. Approximately 80% of patients were rated as good or excellent by evaluation using a 4-point scale and Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment cosmetic results (BCCT.core) software. Donor-site scars were negligible, as in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The LHOF has minimal donor-site morbidity and deformity, and oncological safety is promising. There is a limit to the adaptable volume, but the LHOF is an attractive option in partial breast reconstruction after BCS.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available