Anatomical and Functional Recovery of Neurotized Remnant Rectus Abdominis Muscle in Muscle-Sparing Pedicled Transverse Rectus Abdominis Musculocutaneous Flap

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Background Pedicled transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps typically sacrifice the entire muscle. In our experience, the lateral strip of the rectus abdominis muscle can be spared in an attempt to maintain function and reduce morbidity. When the intercostal nerves are injured, muscle atrophy appears with time. The severed intercostal nerve was reinserted into the remnant lateral strip of the rectus abdominis muscle to reduce muscle atrophy.

Methods The authors retrospectively reviewed 9 neurotized cases and 10 non-neurotized cases. Abdominal computed tomography was performed to determine the area of the rectus muscles. Electromyography (EMG) was performed to check contractile function of the remnant muscle. A single investigator measured the mean areas of randomly selected locations (second lumbar spine) using ImageJ software in a series of 10 cross-sectional slices. We compared the Hounsfield unit (HU) pre- and postoperatively to evaluate regeneration quality.

Results In the neurotization group, 7 of 9 cases maintained the mass of remnant muscle. However, in the non-neurotization group, 8 of 10 lost their mass. The number of totally atrophied muscles in each of the two groups was significantly different (P=0.027). All of the remnant muscles showed contractile function on EMG. The 9 remaining remnant rectus abdominis muscles showed declined the HU value after surgery but also within a normal range of muscle.

Conclusions Neurotization was found to be effective in maintaining the mass of remnant muscle. Neurotized remnant muscle had contractile function on EMG and no fatty degeneration by HU value.

The authors thank Dr. Yang for the medical illustrations.

Publication History

Received: 07 March 2013

Accepted: 13 June 2013

Article published online:
01 May 2022

© 2013. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, permitting unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

• References

• 1 Hartrampf CR, Scheflan M, Black PW. Breast reconstruction with a transverse abdominal island flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1982; 69: 216-225
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Hartrampf Jr CR, Bennett GK. Autogenous tissue reconstruction in the mastectomy patient: a critical review of 300 patients. Ann Surg 1987; 205: 508-519
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Hartrampf Jr CR. Abdominal wall competence in transverse abdominal island flap operations. Ann Plast Surg 1984; 12: 139-146
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Grotting JC, Urist MM, Maddox WA. et al. Conventional TRAM flap versus free microsurgical TRAM flap for immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1989; 83: 828-841
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Mizgala CL, Hartrampf Jr CR, Bennett GK. Assessment of the abdominal wall after pedicled TRAM flap surgery: 5- to 7-year follow-up of 150 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 1994; 93: 988-1002
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Serletti JM, Moran SL. Free versus the pedicled TRAM flap: a cost comparison and outcome analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 100: 1418-1424
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Suominen S, Asko-Seljavaara S, von Smitten K. et al. Sequelae in the abdominal wall after pedicled or free TRAM flap surgery. Ann Plast Surg 1996; 36: 629-636
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Alderman AK, Kuzon Jr WM, Wilkins EG. A two-year prospective analysis of trunk function in TRAM breast reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117: 2131-2138
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Hammond DC, Larson DL, Severinac RN. et al. Rectus abdominis muscle innervation: implications for TRAM flap elevation. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995; 96: 105-110
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Lejour M, Dome M. Abdominal wall function after rectus abdominis transfer. Plast Reconstr Surg 1991; 87: 1054-1068
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Clugston PA, Gingrass MK, Azurin D. et al. Ipsilateral pedicled TRAM flaps: the safer alternative?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 105: 77-82
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Duchateau J, Declety A, Lejour M. Innervation of the rectus abdominis muscle: implications for rectus flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988; 82: 223-228
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Galli A, Adami M, Berrino P. et al. Long-term evaluation of the abdominal wall competence after total and selective harvesting of the rectus abdominis muscle. Ann Plast Surg 1992; 28: 409-413
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Moon HK, Taylor GI. The vascular anatomy of rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps based on the deep superior epigastric system. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988; 82: 815-832
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Rozen WM, Ashton MW, Kiil BJ. et al. Avoiding denervation of rectus abdominis in DIEP flap harvest II: an intraoperative assessment of the nerves to rectus. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122: 1321-1325
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Fleckenstein JL, Watumull D, Conner KE. et al. Denervated human skeletal muscle: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology 1993; 187: 213-218
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Goodpaster BH, Kelley DE, Thaete FL. et al. Skeletal muscle attenuation determined by computed tomography is associated with skeletal muscle lipid content. J Appl Physiol 2000; 89: 104-110
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Dumitru D, Amato AA, Zwarts MJ. Electrodiagnostic medicine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Hanley & Belfus; 2002
  Google Scholar