Next Article in Journal
Severe COVID-19: Drugs and Clinical Trials
Previous Article in Journal
Treatment Advances in Sepsis and Septic Shock: Modulating Pro- and Anti-Inflammatory Mechanisms
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 8
10.3390/jcm12082894
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Breast Reconstruction with DIEP Flap: The Learning Curve at a Breast Reconstruction Center and a Single-Surgeon Study

by
Charalampos Varnava
1,2,3,*,†,
Philipp Wiebringhaus
1,2,3,†,
Tobias Hirsch
1,2,3,
Alexander Dermietzel
1,2,3 and
Maximilian Kueckelhaus
1,2,3
1
Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Muenster, 48149 Muenster, Germany
2
Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Hand Surgery, Fachklinik Hornheide, 48157 Muenster, Germany
3
Institute of Musculoskeletal Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, 48149 Muenster, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(8), 2894; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12082894
Submission received: 13 February 2023 / Revised: 19 March 2023 / Accepted: 4 April 2023 / Published: 16 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery/Aesthetic Medicine)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Although microsurgical breast reconstruction represents a very interesting and rewarding field of plastic surgery, appropriate microsurgical training is not possible in every plastic surgery department. In this retrospective study, we present the learning curve of our plastic surgery department as a whole and of a single microsurgeon assessing breast reconstruction procedures with a deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap between July 2018 and June 2021. The present study included 115 patients and 161 flaps. Cases were stratified into single DIEP/double DIEP groups and into early and late groups based on the flap order. Surgery times and postoperative complications were analyzed. Regarding the institution, the length of hospital stay was lower in the late group than in the early group (single 7.1 ± 1.8 vs. 6.3 ± 1.5 days, p = 0.019; double 8.5 ± 3.8 vs. 6.6 ± 1.4 days, p = 0.043). Apart from that, no statistically significant differences were found between the start and end of our study. In terms of the single surgeon, there was a significant improvement in the total surgery time (single 296.0 ± 78.7 vs. 227.5 ± 54.7 min, p = 0.018; double 448.0 ± 85.6 vs. 341.2 ± 43.1 min, p = 0.008), flap ischemia time (53.6 ± 15.1 vs. 40.9 ± 9.5 min, p = 0.007) and length of stay among the compared groups. There was no significant difference in flap loss rate or other complications between the early and late groups. Further performance of surgeries seemed to improve the surgeon’s skills as well as the overall experience of the medical institution.

1. Introduction

Breast reconstruction is a major subject in the field of plastic surgery and often aims to improve patients’ quality of life, regardless of their condition. Due to the advances in technology, microsurgeons have the opportunity to work with better devices, which facilitates the process. However, like in every other surgical field, experience plays an important role in the performance of such surgeries. A long learning curve may prove to be a barrier for some plastic surgeons.
Breast reconstruction is also a very demanding field of plastic surgery. It requires practical microsurgical skills, good spatial perception, extensive knowledge of anatomy and effective decision-making and creativity. All of these skills can potentially be improved through accumulating training and experience.
Not all plastic surgeons have the chance to be trained at a center with a high volume of microsurgical operations and breast reconstructions. As a result, some or many of them may never begin or give up quickly after the first complications occur.
The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap was first presented in 1989 by Koshima [1]. In breast reconstruction, Robert Allen was the one who introduced the DIEP flap as a reconstruction alternative in 1994 [2]. Since then, it has been established as the gold standard in free flap breast reconstruction.
Increased experience has been shown to improve complication rates [3,4,5]. Accurate judgment of adequate perforators also involves a learning curve [6].
This study aims to show the progress of an institution and of a single surgeon as they get more experienced with DIEP flap breast reconstruction. We investigate if the increase in microsurgical experience improves the quality of treatment.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was approved by the local ethics committee (Approval code: 2020-779-f-S. Approval Date: 25 April 2022).
We performed a retrospective study by reviewing the electronic medical records of our institution. We studied a total of 161 DIEP flaps in 115 patients performed over three years between July 2018 and June 2021 at our institution. This study included all patients undergoing either a unilateral breast reconstruction with a DIEP flap or a bilateral breast reconstruction with DIEP flaps during this period. The analysis of the calculated parameters was made for all the procedures as a whole and also separately, only for procedures performed by one of our surgeons (single-surgeon study). The procedures were performed by four senior surgeons: two with previous experience in breast reconstruction and two without. Therefore, the data presented reflect the learning curve of a newly established high-volume breast reconstruction center on the one hand and the learning curve of a single surgeon on the other. For the single-surgeon study, the cases in which a critical part of the surgery (flap raise, anastomosis, inset of the flap) was performed by another surgeon were excluded. During bilateral reconstructions, a single surgeon performed the elevation of both flaps while another surgeon simultaneously performed steps such as wound closure and recipient site preparation and closure.
For preoperative planning and perforator visualization, a computer tomographic angiography (CTA) was performed in every breast reconstruction with a DIEP flap.
All arterial anastomoses were hand-sutured, and all venous anastomoses were performed using a coupler device.
The cases were compared according to the total surgery time, ischemia time, hospital stay, flap loss and complications postoperatively. Wound dehiscence, seroma and infection were identified as donor-site complications.
All performed DIEPs were split for purposes of analysis into two subgroups of 80 (early group—first half of flaps performed) and 81 flaps (late group—second half of flaps performed) and 59 and 56 patients, respectively. The single-surgeon DIEP group was also split into two subgroups of 29 and 28 flaps and 20 and 22 patients. From these subgroups, the single and double reconstructions were separated and analyzed (Figure 1).
For ischemia time and postoperative complication evaluation, both single and double DIEP reconstruction times were taken into account.
Data are reported as mean ± standard deviation and median. Scatter plots and box plots were used to visualize the change over time, with the x-axis showing the flap number in the specific group and the y-axis showing the measured parameter.
The retrieved data were documented in Excel. The statistical analysis was performed with Microsoft Excel v2104 (Redmond, WA, USA) and IBM SPSS Statistics v25 (Armonk, NY, USA). We tested for normality using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The equality of variances was assessed using the Lavene test. The variables of each group were compared using the Pearson chi-square test, t-test, Fischer’s exact test and the Mann–Whitney test.
A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Institution

Between July 2018 and June 2021, a total of 161 breast reconstructions with DIEP flaps were performed in our institution. Of the total number, 42.9% of the DIEP flaps (n = 69) were performed unilaterally, and 57.1% (n = 92) were performed bilaterally.
The mean patient age was 50.5 ± 10.2 years (median 51.9), and the mean BMI was 27.4 ± 4.7 kg/m2 (median 27).
In the first group, the mean age was 51.4 ± 10.6 years (median 52.4), and the mean BMI was 28.3 ± 4.7 kg/m2 (median 28). In the second group, the mean age was 49.6 ± 9.8 years (median 52.4), and the mean BMI was 26.4 ± 4.5 kg/m2 (median 26). Page = 0.352, pBMI = 0.029.
The average follow-up was 10.1 ± 5.7 months (median 11.3) for the team group.
The mean total surgery time of the single DIEP group was 282.2 ± 71.1 min (median 266), and of the double DIEP group was 398.6 ± 101.6 min (median 370) (Figure 2).
The first single DIEP group (A1) showed a mean total surgery time of 276.4 ± 67.4 min (median 251.5), and the second single DIEP group (B1) showed a mean of 287.8 ± 75.2 min (median 270) with p = 0.617.
The first double DIEP group (A2) showed a mean total surgery time of 408.4 ± 101.8 min (median 388), and the second double DIEP group (B2) showed a mean of 388.8 ± 102.7 min (median 363) with p = 0.290 (Figure 3).
The mean ischemia time of the DIEP group was 55.5 ± 20.5 min (median 51). The mean ischemia time of the first total DIEP group was 54.0 ± 19.8 min (median 50), and of the second total DIEP group, 56.6 ± 21.1 min (median 51.5) with p = 0.640 (Figure 4).
In the first group, partial rib resection was performed to expose the internal mammary vessels in every case, whereas in the second group, a “rib-sparing” technique was used in 24.7% of the cases (n = 20). p < 0.001.
Six patients of the double DIEP group required an abdominal wall repair in the form of a plication due to a diastasis recti abdominis, three in the first group (14.3%) and three in the second (12.0%, p = 1.000). Five patients of the double DIEP group required an abdominal wall repair in the form of a mesh because of a fascia defect, three in the first group (14.3%) and two in the second (8.0%, p = 0.648). When a mesh was required, we performed an onlay mesh repair. No patients of the single DIEP group required an abdominal wall repair.
The mean length of stay for the single DIEP group was 6.7 ± 1.7 days (median 7), and for the double DIEP group was 7.5 ± 3.0 days (median 7).
The mean length of stay for the first single DIEP group was 7.1 ± 1.8 days (median 7) and 6.3 ± 1.5 days (median 6) for the second single DIEP group with p = 0.018. The mean length of stay for the first double DIEP group was 8.5 ± 3.8 days (median 8), and for the second double DIEP group, 6.6 ± 1.4 days (median 6) with p = 0.043.
From the first DIEP group with 80 flaps, six (7.5%) were taken back into the operating room for revision surgery because of an anastomosis problem (one with arterial thrombosis, four with venous thrombosis and one with intrinsic flap thrombosis). In the second DIEP group with 81 flaps, three were taken back into the operating room for revision (3.7%, one with arterial thrombosis, one with venous thrombosis and one with intrinsic flap thrombosis), p = 0.328. The first DIEP group showed 2.5% total flap loss (n = 2) and 6.3% partial flap loss (n = 5).
The second DIEP group showed 2.5% total flap loss (n = 2) and 1.2% partial flap loss (n = 1), ptfl = 1.000 and ppfl = 0.117. Fat necrosis was clinically present in 12.5% of the reconstructed breasts in the first group (n = 10) and in 16.0% in the second group (n = 13), p = 0.654). From the first group, 16.9% of the patients had a donor site complication (n = 10) and from the second group, 21.4% (n = 12, p = 0.638) (Table 1, Figure 5).

3.2. Single-Surgeon

Between July 2018 and June 2021, a total of 57 breast reconstructions with DIEP flaps were performed by the same plastic surgeon in our institution (27 single DIEP, 30 double DIEP and 42 patients). This plastic surgeon was responsible for the preoperative markings, flap design, flap raise, flap inset and anastomosis in these cases.
The mean patient age was 49.8 ± 11.5 years (median 51.2), and the mean BMI was 28.2 ± 4.4 kg/m2 (median 28).
In the first group, the mean age was 49.9 ± 10.3 years (median 50.3), and the mean BMI was 28.8 ± 4.9 kg/m2 (median 29). In the second group, the mean age was 49.6 ± 12.7 years (median 51.4), and the mean BMI was 27.6 ± 4.0 kg/m2 (median 27), page = 0.924, pBMI = 0.363.
The average follow-up was 10.4 ± 6.0 months (median 11.5) for the single-surgeon group.
The mean total surgery time of the single DIEP group was 255.4 ± 72.7 min (median 241), and of the double DIEP group was 405.3 ± 88.2 min (median 388).
The operative time decreased as the number of cases increased in both the single-DIEP and the double-DIEP group. (Figure 2).
The first single DIEP group (A1) showed a mean total surgery time of 296.0 ± 78.7 min (median 266), and the second single DIEP group (B1) showed a mean of 227.5 ± 54.7 min (median 209.5) with p = 0.018.
The first double DIEP group (A2) showed a mean total surgery time of 448.0 ± 85.6 min (median 427), and the second double DIEP group (B2) showed a mean of 341.2 ± 43.1 min (median 325) with p = 0.008 (Figure 3).
The mean ischemia time of the DIEP group was 48.0 ± 15.3 min (median 44). The mean ischemia time of the first total DIEP group was 53.6 ± 15.1 min (median 49) and of the second total DIEP group, 40.9 ± 9.5 min (median 41) with p = 0.007 (Figure 4).
In the first group, a partial rib resection was performed to expose the internal mammary vessels in every case, whereas in the second group, a “rib-sparing” technique was used in one case (3.6%), p = 0.491.
One patient (16.6%) of the second double DIEP group and no patient from the first group required an abdominal wall repair in the form of a plication because of a diastasis recti abdominis (p = 0.400). One patient (11.1%) of the first double DIEP group and no patients from the second group required an abdominal wall repair in the form of a mesh because of a fascia defect (p = 1.000). When a mesh was required, we always performed an onlay mesh repair. No patients of the single DIEP group required any form of abdominal wall repair. The mean length of stay for the single DIEP group was 6.5 ± 1.7 days (median 6), and for the double DIEP group was 8.1 ± 4.2 days (median 7).
The mean length of stay was for the first single DIEP group 7.6 ± 1.8 days (median 7) and for the second single DIEP group 5.8 ± 1.2 days (median 6) with p = 0.007. The mean length of stay for the first double DIEP group was 8.9 ± 5.1 days (median 9), and for the second double DIEP group, 7.0 ± 2.1 days (median 6.5) with p = 0.438.
From the first DIEP group with 29 flaps, one patient (3.4%) was taken back into the operating room for revision surgery because of an anastomosis problem (arterial thrombosis). From the second DIEP group with 28 flaps, one patient was also taken back into the operating room for revision (3.6%, intrinsic flap thrombosis), p = 1.000. The first DIEP group showed 3.4% total flap loss (n = 1) and 3.4% partial flap loss (n = 1).
The second DIEP group showed 3.6% total flap loss (n = 1) and 3.6% partial flap loss (n = 1), ptfl = 1.00 and ppfl = 1.00. Fat necrosis was clinically present in 10.3% of the reconstructed breasts in the first group (n = 3) and 7.2% in the second group (n = 2), p = 0.669. From the first group, 15.0% of the patients had a donor site complication (n = 3) and from the second group, 9.1% (n = 2), p = 0.656 (Table 2, Figure 5).

4. Discussion

A modern breast reconstruction center is required to offer comprehensive options for breast reconstruction. One of these options is the microsurgical free flap reconstruction with the DIEP flap as the gold standard. The successful performance of this complex operation requires a certain amount of training and experience.
Through this study, we aimed to outline the impact of accumulated experience in DIEP breast reconstruction on total surgery time, flap ischemia time, time to ambulation and risk of complications postoperatively.
Ischemia time is an independent risk factor for microvascular complications in breast reconstruction using a DIEP flap [7]. A significant association between ischemia time and fat necrosis rate has already been shown in previous studies [8,9,10], although some suggest the existence of a threshold after which the tissue damage becomes irreversible [7,11]. According to Lee et al. [10], efforts to reduce ischemia time in breast reconstruction using DIEP flaps are desirable in order to decrease the risk of fat necrosis. We were able to show that for a single surgeon, the accumulation of experience reduces the ischemic time.
Some parameters like flap weight, number of perforators, venous drainage, island flap usage, preoperative CTA and the learning curve appear to play a role in determining the operative time [12,13,14,15]. Interestingly, Santanelli di Pompeo et al. recently introduced an algorithm and demonstrated that harvesting the DIEP flap in a “free style technique” without depending on a CTA did not increase operative times or complication rates [16]. This technique is based on clinical judgment, which also requires a specific level of experience. According to Laporta et al., the learning curve appeared to be one of the most important variables able to reduce the total surgery time [12].
Bodin et al. demonstrated a significant DIEP learning curve regarding three parameters: surgical time, surgical revision rate and postoperative hospital stay [17]. Cubitt et al. showed a DIEP learning curve that was reflected in declining complications [18].
Selber et al. reported a learning curve and an increase in microsurgical skills assessed with the Structured Assessment of Microsurgery Skills (SAMS) [19]. In other surgical fields, it was also shown that a certain number of cases were required to reach technical proficiency [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32].
Our findings seem to agree with this suggestion. We demonstrate that for the single surgeon, every analyzed intraoperative parameter and also the length of hospital stay was improved the more experience the surgeon gained. Meanwhile, the revision and flap loss rate remained the same. Very high case numbers are required to capture a significant change in flap survival rates throughout the learning curve. This is attributed to the generally very low flap loss incidence.
Santanelli et al. showed no significant association between the learning curve and partial flap necrosis in a series of 247 cases over seven years. However, the experience and confidence with the procedure resulted as protective factors confirming a progression of learning from the second to the seventh year [33].
Acosta et al. showed a significant success rate increase in unilateral DIEP breast reconstruction from 90.7% in 2000 to 98.2% in 2008. Moreover, the same study showed a dramatic decrease in the mean surgery time over nine years from 7 h and 18 min to 4 h and 8 min [34].
We were able to show in our single-surgeon study group that the mean operating time was reduced by a mean time of 68.5 min for the single DIEP and 106.8 min for the double DIEP over three years.
According to Beudeker et al., a novice plastic surgeon has similar results in complication rates compared to a center of excellence. However, a learning curve in terms of operating time is expected [35].
Postoperative complications consume considerable healthcare resources.
Also, in terms of cost-effectiveness, a reduced operative time and length of hospital stay are desirable [35,36,37]. Surgical site infections are associated with central-line associated bloodstream infections and ventilator-associated pneumonia with high costs [38].
Previous studies showed a significant association between extended operative time and surgical site infection [39,40,41,42,43]. Operative time is an independent risk factor for surgical site infection. This may be due to longer wound exposition to the environment resulting in a higher risk of bacterial contamination [39]. A study of 104,632 cases of 35 procedures of different surgical disciplines also demonstrated a correlation between operation times and complications [44].
According to Fischer et al.’s analysis of 16,063 cases of breast reconstruction, prolonged operative time is a risk factor for surgical and medical complications postoperatively [45]. Thorarinnson et al. demonstrated that a long duration of surgery could explain a substantial risk increase for early complications after breast reconstruction [46]. Korol et al. suggested that patients with longer hospital stays are also at an increased risk for surgical site infections [41]. Various other studies showed that increased operative time was a risk factor predictive of a related reoperation, development of a surgical site infection, prolonged length of stay and postoperative pulmonary complications [47,48,49].
In the single-surgeon group, we showed a statistically significant decrease in total surgery time.
The choice of different recipient vessels, such as axillary vessels, may reduce the operating time [50]. However, in our study, the internal mammary vessels were routinely used.
Parrett et al. described the rib-preservation technique for internal mammary vessel exposure in microsurgical breast reconstruction [51]. Other authors have highlighted possible drawbacks of sacrificing a rib, such as a contour deformity or intercostal neuralgia [52,53]. Throughout our development, we were able to significantly increase the number of rib-sparing cases from 0 (0%) in the first group of flaps to 20 (24.7%) in the second group. Although rib preservation can potentially influence the total surgery time and postoperative complications, this was not demonstrated in our study.
Surgeon and staff experience, fatigue, preoperative planning, equipment, and patient selection are also parameters potentially impacting operating time. Through this study, we show that parameters like total surgery time, flap ischemia time and length of hospital stay decrease as experience increases, whereas the revision rate and flap loss rate remained low. The number of cases with fat necrosis and donor site complications also did not show a statistically significant difference.
Despite the length of stay, there was little difference in most parameters between the early and late institution groups. In our opinion, this can be explained by the fact that operations were initially performed only by the most experienced surgeons in microsurgery but later also by microsurgeons without the same extent of experience in free flap breast reconstruction. However, the total operation time, the hospital stay, the revision rate and the flap loss rate remained low, which is an important aspect for a newly established breast reconstruction center.
Another influencing factor may be the numerous other microsurgical operations and free flap reconstructions (e.g., extremity reconstructions) performed by our surgeons during the time of the study, which also contributes to the accumulation of experience relevant to breast reconstruction. Although true, this is also a general rule which applies to every part of the surgical life of a surgeon, so we accordingly did not take this into account for our calculations.
One limitation was the retrospective nature of the study. The surgeon for whom the data was analyzed for the single-surgeon study was a senior surgeon with microsurgical experience in other fields of plastic surgery. The sample size for the single-surgeon study is relatively small, with a short follow-up period. Furthermore, the number and type of perforators harvested, as well as the flap weight, which influence the total surgery time, were not always documented. There is also a performance bias as some of the operating surgeons had performed this type of surgery before, as mentioned earlier. A standardized assessment of microsurgical skills to evaluate skill acquisition, which was not used during the study, may have further enriched the conclusions. Another very important factor for the measure of success in breast reconstruction is the patient-reported outcomes, which were not included in this study.

5. Conclusions

Although it is commonly anticipated that experience plays a major role in medicine and specifically in plastic surgery, our data further support the expectations in a single-surgeon study. Experience is a key factor in improving the quality of treatment in breast reconstruction. With an increase in experience comes a decrease in operation time and length of hospital stay. Although microsurgery and breast reconstruction are difficult to master, persistence and further performance of surgeries seem to improve the surgeon’s skills in favor of the patients as well as the overall experience of the medical institution.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.V., T.H., M.K. and P.W.; Formal analysis, C.V.; investigation, C.V.; Project administration, M.K. and P.W.; Resources, T.H., M.K. and P.W.; Writing—original draft preparation, C.V.; Writing—review and editing, T.H., A.D., M.K. and P.W., visualization, C.V.; Supervision, T.H., M.K. and P.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethic Committee Name: Ethics Committee of the Medical Association Westphalia-Lippe and the Westphalian Wilhelms University. Approval code: 2020-779-f-S. Approval Date: 25 April 2022.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Koshima, I.; Soeda, S. Inferior epigastric artery skin flaps without rectus abdominis muscle. Br. J. Plast. Surg. 1989, 42, 645–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Allen, R.J.; Treece, P. Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap for Breast Reconstruction. Ann. Plast. Surg. 1994, 32, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Busic, V.; Das-Gupta, R.; Mesic, H.; Begic, A. The deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction, the learning curve explored. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2006, 59, 580–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Hofer, S.O.P.; Damen, T.H.C.; Mureau, M.A.M.; Rakhorst, H.; Roche, N. A Critical Review of Perioperative Complications in 175 Free Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstructions. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2007, 59, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Lascar, I.; Totir, D.; Cinca, A.; Cortan, S.; Stefanescu, A.; Bratianu, R.; Udrescu, G.; Calcaianu, N.; Zamfirescu, D.G. Training program and learning curve in experimental microsurgery during the residency in plastic surgery. Microsurgery 2007, 27, 263–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Gill, P.S.; Hunt, J.P.; Guerra, A.B.; Dellacroce, F.J.; Sullivan, S.K.; Boraski, J.; Metzinger, S.E.; Dupin, C.L.; Allen, R.J. A 10-Year Retrospective Review of 758 DIEP Flaps for Breast Reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2004, 113, 1153–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Marre, D.; Hontanilla, B. Increments in ischaemia time induces microvascular complications in the DIEP flap for breast reconstruction. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2013, 66, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lee, J.C.; Jang, H.-D.; Shin, B.-J. Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: Our experience in 86 consecutive cases. Spine 2012, 37, 1548–1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Morris, S.F.; Pang, C.Y.; Zhong, A.; Boyd, B.; Forrest, C.R. Assessment of Ischemia-Induced Reperfusion Injury in the Pig Latissimus Dorsi Myocutaneous Flap Model. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1993, 92, 1162–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lee, K.-T.; Lee, J.E.; Nam, S.J.; Mun, G.-H. Ischaemic time and fat necrosis in breast reconstruction with a free deep inferior epigastric perforator flap. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2013, 66, 174–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gürlek, A.; Kroll, S.S.; Schusterman, M.A. Ischemic Time and Free Flap Success. Ann. Plast. Surg. 1997, 38, 503–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. LaPorta, R.; Longo, B.; Sorotos, M.; Farcomeni, A.; Amorosi, V.; Di Pompeo, F.S. Time-dependent factors in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Microsurgery 2017, 37, 793–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Smit, J.M.; Dimopoulou, A.; Liss, A.G.; Zeebregts, C.J.; Kildal, M.; Whitaker, I.S.; Magnusson, A.; Acosta, R. Preoperative CT angiography reduces surgery time in perforator flap reconstruction. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2009, 62, 1112–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Casey, W.J.; Chew, R.T.; Rebecca, A.M.; Smith, A.A.; Collins, J.M.; Pockaj, B.A. Advantages of Preoperative Computed Tomography in Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2009, 123, 1148–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Acosta, R.; Enajat, M.; Rozen, W.M.; Smit, J.M.; Wagstaff, M.J.; Whitaker, I.S.; Audolfsson, T. Performing two DIEP flaps in a working day: An achievable and reproducible practice. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2010, 63, 648–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Di Pompeo, F.S.; Paolini, G.; D’Orsi, G.; Atzeni, M.; Catalano, C.; Cannavale, G.; Cilia, F.; Firmani, G.; Sorotos, M. Free-style technique versus computed tomographic angiography—Guided perforator selection in deep inferior epigastric perforator flap harvest: A prospective clinical study. Microsurgery 2023. published online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bodin, F.; Dissaux, C.; Lutz, J.-C.; Hendriks, S.; Fiquet, C.; Bruant-Rodier, C. The DIEP flap breast reconstruction: Starting from scratch in a university hospital. Ann. Chir. Plast. Esthet. 2015, 60, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cubitt, J.; Barber, Z.; Khan, A.; Tyler, M. Breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2012, 94, 552–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Selber, J.C.; Chang, E.I.; Liu, J.; Suami, H.; Adelman, D.M.; Garvey, P.; Hanasono, M.M.; Butler, C.E. Tracking the Learning Curve in Microsurgical Skill Acquisition. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2012, 130, 550e–557e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Kim, J.-E.; Yoo, H.-S.; Choi, D.-J.; Hwang, J.-H.; Park, E.J.; Chung, S. Learning Curve and Clinical Outcome of Biportal Endoscopic-Assisted Lumbar Interbody Fusion. BioMed Res. Int. 2020, 2020, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nowitzke, A.M. Assessment of the Learning Curve for Lumbar Microendoscopic Discectomy. Neurosurgery 2005, 56, 755–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Silva, P.S.; Pereira, P.; Monteiro, P.; Vaz, R. Learning curve and complications of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg. Focus 2013, 35, E7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kwak, H.Y.; Kim, S.H.; Chae, B.J.; Song, B.J.; Jung, S.S.; Bae, J.S. Learning curve for gasless endoscopic thyroidectomy using the trans-axillary approach: CUSUM analysis of a single surgeon’s experience. Int. J. Surg. 2014, 12, 1273–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ballantyne, G.H.; Ewing, D.; Capella, R.F.; Capella, J.F.; Davis, D.; Schmidt, H.J.; Wasielewski, A.; Davies, R.J. The Learning Curve Measured by Operating Times for Laparoscopic and Open Gastric Bypass: Roles of Surgeon’s Experience, Institutional Experience, Body Mass Index and Fellowship Training. Obes. Surg. 2005, 15, 172–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kim, H.S.; Park, J.S.; Yoon, D.S. True learning curve of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with splenic vessel preservation. Surg. Endosc. 2018, 33, 88–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. De Rooij, T.; Cipriani, F.; Rawashdeh, M.; van Dieren, S.; Barbaro, S.; Abuawwad, M.; van Hilst, J.; Fontana, M.; Besselink, M.G.; Abu Hilal, M. Single-Surgeon Learning Curve in 111 Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomies: Does Operative Time Tell the Whole Story? J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2017, 224, 826–832e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Shakir, M.; Boone, B.A.; Polanco, P.M.; Zenati, M.S.; Hogg, M.E.; Tsung, A.; Choudry, H.A.; Moser, A.J.; Bartlett, D.L.; Zeh, H.J.; et al. The learning curve for robotic distal pancreatectomy: An analysis of outcomes of the first 100 consecutive cases at a high-volume pancreatic centre. HPB 2015, 17, 580–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kimchi, G.; Orlev, A.; Hadanny, A.; Knoller, N.; Harel, R. Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: The Learning Curve of a Single Surgeon. Glob. Spine J. 2019, 10, 1022–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Lai, H.-W.; Mok, C.W.; Chang, Y.-T.; Chen, D.-R.; Kuo, S.-J.; Chen, S.-T. Endoscopic assisted breast conserving surgery for breast cancer: Clinical outcome, learning curve, and patient reported aesthetic results from preliminary 100 procedures. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. (EJSO) 2020, 46, 1446–1455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Li, L.Y.; Wen, L.Y.; Park, S.H.; Nam, E.J.; Lee, J.Y.; Kim, S.; Kim, Y.T.; Kim, S.W. Impact of the Learning Curve on the Survival of Abdominal or Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer. Cancer Res. Treat. 2021, 53, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Loh, Z.-J.; Wu, T.-Y.; Cheng, F.T.-F. Evaluation of the Learning Curve in Robotic Nipple-sparing Mastectomy for Breast Cancer. Clin. Breast Cancer 2021, 21, e279–e284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. De Jong, L.; Klem, T.M.A.L.; Kuijper, T.M.; Roukema, G.R. Factors affecting the rate of surgical site infection in patients after hemiarthroplasty of the hip following a fracture of the neck of the femur. Bone Jt. J. 2017, 99-B, 1088–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Santanelli, F.; Longo, B.; Cagli, B.; Pugliese, P.; Sorotos, M.; Paolini, G. Predictive and protective factors for partial necrosis in DIEP flap breast reconstruction: Does nulliparity bias flap viability? Ann. Plast. Surg. 2015, 74, 47–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Acosta, R.; Smit, J.M.; Audolfsson, T.; Darcy, C.M.; Enajat, M.; Kildal, M.; Liss, A.G. A Clinical Review of 9 Years of Free Perforator Flap Breast Reconstructions: An Analysis of 675 Flaps and the Influence of New Techniques on Clinical Practice. J. Reconstr. Microsurg. 2010, 27, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Beudeker, N.; Smits, I.; Spierings, R.; Rijntalder, T.; Verduijn, P.S.; de Wit, T.; Mureau, M.A.; Rakhorst, H.A. Starting an autologous breast reconstruction program after plastic surgical training. Is it as good as it gets? J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2020, 73, 286–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Kaplan, J.L.; Allen, R.J. Cost-Based Comparison between Perforator Flaps and TRAM Flaps for Breast Reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2000, 105, 943–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Uppal, R.S.; Casaer, B.; Van Landuyt, K.; Blondeel, P. The efficacy of preoperative mapping of perforators in reducing operative times and complications in perforator flap breast reconstruction. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2009, 62, 859–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zimlichman, E.; Henderson, D.; Tamir, O.; Franz, C.; Song, P.; Yamin, C.K.; Keohane, C.; Denham, C.R.; Bates, D.W. Health Care–Associated Infections: A meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Intern. Med. 2013, 173, 2039–2046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Cheng, H.; Chen, B.P.-H.; Soleas, I.M.; Ferko, N.C.; Cameron, C.G.; Hinoul, P. Prolonged Operative Duration Increases Risk of Surgical Site Infections: A Systematic Review. Surg. Infect. 2017, 18, 722–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gibbons, C.; Bruce, J.; Carpenter, J.; Wilson, A.; Wilson, J.; Pearson, A.; Lamping, D.; Krukowski, Z.; Reeves, B. Identification of risk factors by systematic review and development of risk-adjusted models for surgical site infection. Heal. Technol. Assess. 2011, 15, 1–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Korol, E.; Johnston, K.; Waser, N.; Sifakis, F.; Jafri, H.; Lo, M.; Kyaw, M.H. A Systematic Review of Risk Factors Associated with Surgical Site Infections among Surgical Patients. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e83743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kurmann, A.; Vorburger, S.A.; Candinas, D.; Beldi, G. Operation time and body mass index are significant risk factors for surgical site infection in laparoscopic sigmoid resection: A multicenter study. Surg. Endosc. 2011, 25, 3531–3534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Yamamoto, S.; Nagamine, Y.; Miyashita, T.; Ito, S.; Iwasawa, Y.; Kawai, M.; Saito, S.; Tamai, T.; Goto, T. Perioperative and anesthetic risk factors of surgical site infection in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: A retrospective cohort study. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0240490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Daley, B.J.; Cecil, W.; Clarke, C.P.; Cofer, J.B.; Guillamondegui, O.D. How Slow Is Too Slow? Correlation of Operative Time to Complications: An Analysis from the Tennessee Surgical Quality Collaborative. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2015, 220, 550–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Fischer, J.P.; Nelson, J.; Au, A.; Ct, T.; Serletti, J.M.; Wu, L.C. Complications and morbidity following breast reconstruction—A review of 16,063 cases from the 2005–2010 NSQIP datasets. J. Plast. Surg. Hand Surg. 2013, 48, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Thorarinsson, A.; Fröjd, V.; Kölby, L.; Modin, A.; Lewin, R.; Elander, A.; Mark, H. Blood loss and duration of surgery are independent risk factors for complications after breast reconstruction. J. Plast. Surg. Hand Surg. 2017, 51, 352–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Wan, M.; Zhang, J.X.; Ding, Y.; Jin, Y.; Bedford, J.; Nagarajan, M.; Bucevska, M.; Courtemanche, D.; Arneja, J.S. High-Risk Plastic Surgery: An Analysis of 108,303 Cases from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP). Plast. Surg. 2019, 28, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Collins, T.C.; Daley, J.; Henderson, W.H.; Khuri, S.F. Risk Factors for Prolonged Length of Stay After Major Elective Surgery. Ann. Surg. 1999, 230, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Canet, J.; Gallart, L.; Gomar, C.; Paluzie, G.; Vallès, J.; Castillo, J.; Sabaté, S.; Mazo, V.; Briones, Z.; Sanchis, J.; et al. Prediction of Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in a Population-based Surgical Cohort. Anesthesiology 2010, 113, 1338–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Di Pompeo, F.S.; Longo, B.; Sorotos, M.; Pagnoni, M.; LaPorta, R. The axillary versus internal mammary recipient vessel sites for breast reconstruction with diep flaps: A retrospective study of 256 consecutive cases. Microsurgery 2014, 35, 34–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Parrett, B.M.; Caterson, S.A.; Tobias, A.M.; Lee, B.T. The Rib-Sparing Technique for Internal Mammary Vessel Exposure in Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2008, 60, 241–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Schwabegger, A.; Gschnitzer, C.; Ninkovic, M. Contour deformity at the internal mammary recipient site. Br. J. Plast. Surg. 1999, 52, 674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Kavouni, A.; Shibu, M. Problems associated with the use of internal mammary vessels as recipients for free flap breast reconstruction. Br. J. Plast. Surg. 1999, 52, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 12 02894 g001 550
Figure 1. Group classification.
Figure 1. Group classification.
Jcm 12 02894 g001
Jcm 12 02894 g002a 550Jcm 12 02894 g002b 550
Figure 2. Institution (a) and Single-Surgeon Study (b)—Development of the overall surgery time with respect to the number of the flap-DIEP 1: single DIEP; DIEP 2: double DIEP.
Figure 2. Institution (a) and Single-Surgeon Study (b)—Development of the overall surgery time with respect to the number of the flap-DIEP 1: single DIEP; DIEP 2: double DIEP.
Jcm 12 02894 g002aJcm 12 02894 g002b
Jcm 12 02894 g003 550
Figure 3. Institution and Single-Surgeon Study—Comparison of the surgery time of early and late groups for the single DIEP- and for the double DIEP-reconstructions. *: statistically significant.
Figure 3. Institution and Single-Surgeon Study—Comparison of the surgery time of early and late groups for the single DIEP- and for the double DIEP-reconstructions. *: statistically significant.
Jcm 12 02894 g003
Jcm 12 02894 g004 550
Figure 4. Institution (a) and Single-Surgeon Study (b)—Development of the flap ischemia time with respect to the number of the flap.
Figure 4. Institution (a) and Single-Surgeon Study (b)—Development of the flap ischemia time with respect to the number of the flap.
Jcm 12 02894 g004
Jcm 12 02894 g005 550
Figure 5. Timeline of the occurrence of events (y-axis) with respect to the number of consecutive DIEP-flap (x-axis)-TFL: total flap loss; PFL: partial flap loss; DSC: donor site complication; AR: anastomosis revision; FN: fat necrosis.
Figure 5. Timeline of the occurrence of events (y-axis) with respect to the number of consecutive DIEP-flap (x-axis)-TFL: total flap loss; PFL: partial flap loss; DSC: donor site complication; AR: anastomosis revision; FN: fat necrosis.
Jcm 12 02894 g005
Table
Table 1. Institution (Mean ± SD).
Table 1. Institution (Mean ± SD).
Group A (%)Group B (%)p
No. of flaps
Total8081
Unilateral 3831
Bilateral 4250
No. of patients
Total5956
Unilateral 3831
Bilateral 2125
Follow-up (months)
11.6 ± 6.28.6 ± 4.70.007 *
Age (years)
51.4 ± 10.649.6 ± 9.80.352
BMI (Kg/m2)
28.3 ± 4.726.4 ± 4.50.029 *
Total surgery time (min)
Single DIEP276.4 ± 67.4287.8 ± 75.20.617
Double DIEP408.4 ± 101.8388.8 ± 102.70.290
Flap ischemia time (min)
54.0 ± 19.856.6 ± 21.10.640
Rib preservation
0 (0)20 (24.7)<0.001 *
Length of stay (d)
Single DIEP7.1 ± 1.86.3 ± 1.50.019 *
Double DIEP8.5 ± 3.86.6 ± 1.40.043 *
Anastomosis revision
6 (7.5)3 (3.7)0.328
Total flap loss
2 (2.5)2 (2.5)1.000
Partial flap loss
5 (6.3)1 (1.2)0.117
Fat necrosis
10 (12.5)13 (16.0)0.654
Donor site complication
10 (16.9)12 (21.4)0.638
* Statistically significant; SD: standard deviation.
Table
Table 2. Single surgeon (Mean ± SD).
Table 2. Single surgeon (Mean ± SD).
Group A (%)Group B (%)p
No. of flaps
Total2928
Unilateral 1116
Bilateral 1812
No. of patients
Total2022
Unilateral1116
Bilateral96
Follow-up (months)
11.2 ± 6.29.7 ± 5.90.432
Age (years)
49.9 ± 10.349.6 ± 12.70.924
BMI (Kg/m2)
28.8 ± 4.927.6 ± 4.00.363
Total surgery time (min)
Single DIEP296.0 ± 78.7227.5 ± 54.70.018 *
Double DIEP448.0 ± 85.6341.2 ± 43.10.008 *
Flap ischemia time (min)
53.6 ± 15.140.9 ± 9.50.007 *
Rib preservation
0 (0)1 (3.6)0.491
Length of stay (d)
Single DIEP7.6 ± 1.85.8 ± 1.20.007 *
Double DIEP8.9 ± 5.17.0 ± 2.10.438
Anastomosis revision
1 (3.4)1 (3.6)1.000
Total flap loss
1 (3.4)1 (3.6)1.000
Partial flap loss
1 (3.6)1 (3.6)1.000
Fat necrosis
3 (10.3)2 (7.2)0.669
Donor site complication
3 (15.0)2 (9.1)0.656
* Statistically significant; SD: standard deviation.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Varnava, C.; Wiebringhaus, P.; Hirsch, T.; Dermietzel, A.; Kueckelhaus, M. Breast Reconstruction with DIEP Flap: The Learning Curve at a Breast Reconstruction Center and a Single-Surgeon Study. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 2894. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12082894

AMA Style

Varnava C, Wiebringhaus P, Hirsch T, Dermietzel A, Kueckelhaus M. Breast Reconstruction with DIEP Flap: The Learning Curve at a Breast Reconstruction Center and a Single-Surgeon Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(8):2894. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12082894

Chicago/Turabian Style

Varnava, Charalampos, Philipp Wiebringhaus, Tobias Hirsch, Alexander Dermietzel, and Maximilian Kueckelhaus. 2023. "Breast Reconstruction with DIEP Flap: The Learning Curve at a Breast Reconstruction Center and a Single-Surgeon Study" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 8: 2894. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12082894

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop