To Resect or Not to Resect: The Effects of Rib-Sparing Harvest of the Internal Mammary Vessels in Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The internal mammary vessels are the most commonly used recipients for microsurgical breast reconstructions. Often, the costal cartilage is sacrificed to obtain improved vessel exposure. In an effort to reduce adverse effects associated with traditional rib sacrifice, recent studies have described less-invasive, rib-sparing strategies.

Methods After obtaining institutional review board's approval, a retrospective review of all patients undergoing microsurgical breast reconstruction at a single institution between November 2007 and December 2013 was conducted. Patients were divided into two cohorts for comparison: rib-sacrificing and rib-sparing internal mammary vessel harvests.

Results A total of 547 reconstructions (344 patients) met inclusion criteria for this study. A total of 64.9% (n = 355) underwent rib-sacrificing internal mammary vessel harvest. Cohorts were similar in baseline patient characteristics, indications for surgery, and cancer therapies. However, patients undergoing rib-sparing reconstructions had significantly shorter operative times (440 vs. 476 minutes; p < 0.01), and significantly less postoperative pain on postoperative day (POD) 1 (2.8/10 vs. 3.4/10; p = 0.033) and POD2 (2.4/10 vs. 3.0/10; p = 0.037). Furthermore, patients undergoing rib-sparing techniques had greater incidence of fat necrosis requiring excision (12.5 vs. 2.8%; p < 0.01) and a trend toward higher incidence of hematoma, venous thrombosis, and arterial thrombosis when compared with rib-sacrificing patients.

Conclusions Rib-sparing harvest of internal mammary vessels is a feasible technique in microsurgical breast reconstruction. However, given the significant increase in fat necrosis requiring surgical excision, the trend toward increased postoperative complications, and no significant difference in postoperative revision rates, the purported benefits of this technique may fail to outweigh the possible risks.

• References

• 1 Colakoglu S, Khansa I, Curtis MS , et al. Impact of complications on patient satisfaction in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (4) 1428-1436
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Zhong T, McCarthy C, Min S , et al. Patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life after autologous tissue breast reconstruction: a prospective analysis of early postoperative outcomes. Cancer 2012; 118 (6) 1701-1709
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Healy C, Allen Sr RJ. The evolution of perforator flap breast reconstruction: twenty years after the first DIEP flap. J Reconstr Microsurg 2014; 30 (2) 121-125
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Saint-Cyr M, Youssef A, Bae HW, Robb GL, Chang DW. Changing trends in recipient vessel selection for microvascular autologous breast reconstruction: an analysis of 1483 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 119 (7) 1993-2000
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Dupin CL, Allen RJ, Glass CA, Bunch R. The internal mammary artery and vein as a recipient site for free-flap breast reconstruction: a report of 110 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996; 98 (4) 685-689 , discussion 690–692
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Feller AM. Free TRAM. Results and abdominal wall function. Clin Plast Surg 1994; 21 (2) 223-232
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Parrett BM, Caterson SA, Tobias AM, Lee BT. The rib-sparing technique for internal mammary vessel exposure in microsurgical breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2008; 60 (3) 241-243
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Schwabegger AH, Gschnitzer C, Ninkovic MM. Contour deformity at the internal mammary recipient site. Br J Plast Surg 1999; 52 (8) 674-674
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Mickute Z, Di Candia M, Moses M, Bailey AR, Malata CM. Analgesia requirements in patients undergoing DIEP flap breast reconstructions: rib preservation versus rib sacrifice. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63 (12) e837-e839
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Ahdoot MA, Echo A, Otake LR , et al. The Matrix Rib Plating System: Improving Aesthetic Outcomes in Microvascular Breast Reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2013; 70 (4) 384-388
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Sacks JM, Chang DW. Rib-sparing internal mammary vessel harvest for microvascular breast reconstruction in 100 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123 (5) 1403-1407
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Mosahebi A, Da Lio A, Mehrara BJ. The use of a pectoralis major flap to improve internal mammary vessels exposure and reduce contour deformity in microvascular free flap breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2008; 61 (1) 30-34
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 McCaffery M, Beebe A. Pain: Clinical Manual of Nursing Practice. Baltimore, MD: VV Mosby Company; 1993
  Google Scholar
• 14 Allen RJ, Treece P. Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 32 (1) 32-38
  Google Scholar
• 15 Ninković M, Anderl H, Hefel L, Schwabegger A, Wechselberger G. Internal mammary vessels: a reliable recipient system for free flaps in breast reconstruction. Br J Plast Surg 1995; 48 (8) 533-539
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Hefel L, Schwabegger A, Ninković M , et al. Internal mammary vessels: anatomical and clinical considerations. Br J Plast Surg 1995; 48 (8) 527-532
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Carlson GW. Trends in autologous breast reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg 2004; 18 (2) 79-87
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Khansa I, Momoh AO, Patel PP, Nguyen JT, Miller MJ, Lee BT. Fat necrosis in autologous abdomen-based breast reconstruction: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (3) 443-452
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Rao A, Saadeh PB. Defining fat necrosis in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134 (6) 1202-1212
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Broer PN, Weichman KE, Tanna N , et al. Venous coupler size in autologous breast reconstruction-does it matter?. Microsurgery 2013; 33 (7) 514-518
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Wang XL, Liu LB, Song FM, Wang QY. Meta-analysis of the safety and factors contributing to complications of MS-TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA flaps for breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2014; 38 (4) 681-691
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar