Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A single center comparison of one versus two venous anastomoses in 564 consecutive DIEP flaps: Investigating the effect on venous congestion and flap survival

A single center comparison of one versus two venous anastomoses in 564 consecutive DIEP flaps:... Background: Venous complications have been reported as the more frequently encountered vascular complications seen in the transfer of deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEA) perforator (DIEP) flaps, with a variety of techniques described for augmenting the venous drainage of these flaps to minimize venous congestion. The benefits of such techniques have not been shown to be of clinical benefit on a large scale due to the small number of cases in published series. Methods: A retrospective study of 564 consecutive DIEP flaps at a single institution was undertaken, comparing the prospective use of one venous anastomosis (273 cases) to two anastomoses (291 cases). The secondary donor vein comprised a second DIEA venae commitante in 7.9% of cases and a superficial inferior epigastric vein (SIEV) in 92.1%. Clinical outcomes were assessed, in particular rates of venous congestion. Results: The use of two venous anastomoses resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases of venous congestion to zero (0 vs. 7, P = 0.006). All other outcomes were similar between groups. Notably, the use of a secondary vein did not result in any significant increase in operative time (385 minutes vs. 383 minutes, P = 0.57). Conclusions: The use of a secondary vein in the drainage of a DIEP flap can significantly reduce the incidence of venous congestion, with no detriment to complication rates. Consideration of incorporating both the superficial and deep venous systems is an approach that may further improve the venous drainage of the flap. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc. Microsurgery, 2010. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Microsurgery Wiley

A single center comparison of one versus two venous anastomoses in 564 consecutive DIEP flaps: Investigating the effect on venous congestion and flap survival

Download PDF
7 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/a-single-center-comparison-of-one-versus-two-venous-anastomoses-in-564-CXlea1xdV3

References (35)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
ISSN
0738-1085
eISSN
1098-2752
DOI
10.1002/micr.20712
pmid
19790180
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Background: Venous complications have been reported as the more frequently encountered vascular complications seen in the transfer of deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEA) perforator (DIEP) flaps, with a variety of techniques described for augmenting the venous drainage of these flaps to minimize venous congestion. The benefits of such techniques have not been shown to be of clinical benefit on a large scale due to the small number of cases in published series. Methods: A retrospective study of 564 consecutive DIEP flaps at a single institution was undertaken, comparing the prospective use of one venous anastomosis (273 cases) to two anastomoses (291 cases). The secondary donor vein comprised a second DIEA venae commitante in 7.9% of cases and a superficial inferior epigastric vein (SIEV) in 92.1%. Clinical outcomes were assessed, in particular rates of venous congestion. Results: The use of two venous anastomoses resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases of venous congestion to zero (0 vs. 7, P = 0.006). All other outcomes were similar between groups. Notably, the use of a secondary vein did not result in any significant increase in operative time (385 minutes vs. 383 minutes, P = 0.57). Conclusions: The use of a secondary vein in the drainage of a DIEP flap can significantly reduce the incidence of venous congestion, with no detriment to complication rates. Consideration of incorporating both the superficial and deep venous systems is an approach that may further improve the venous drainage of the flap. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc. Microsurgery, 2010.

Journal

Microsurgery – Wiley

Published: Jan 1, 2010

There are no references for this article.