Search

Background:. Rectus abdominis flap coverage of high-risk perineal wounds following extirpative pelvic procedures can result in improved perineal outcomes. However, rectus abdominis flap harvest has morbidity associated with the donor site, including hernia or bulge development. The risk–benefit profile of mesh use in this scenario is not well-defined in the literature. Methods:. We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent rectus abdominis flap coverage of pelvic defects at our institution during July 2012–January 2021. Patient characteristics and postoperative outcomes were assessed. Patients were stratified into groups based on whether mesh was used and whether primary fascial closure was achieved. Donor site outcomes were analyzed between groups. Results:. One hundred consecutive patients were included. When considering all patients in whom primary fascial closure was achieved, the use of mesh did not significantly decrease rates of hernia development. Mesh use in this setting was associated with significantly greater rates of infection, requiring procedural intervention (12% versus 0%, P = 0.044). When considering all patients in whom mesh was used, primary fascial closure was associated with decreased rates of hernia development, and this trended toward significance (16.1% versus 0.0%, P = 0.058). Conclusions:. When closing a pedicled rectus abdominis flap donor site, if primary fascial closure is achievable, the addition of mesh to reinforce the repair does not have an added benefit. Mesh use in this setting was not shown to prevent hernia or bulge development, and was found to be associated with significantly greater rates of infection, requiring procedural intervention.

Background:. In nipple-sparing mastectomy, adequate perfusion to the nipple-areolar complex (NAC) during reconstruction is paramount to avoiding unwanted outcomes. Previous studies have suggested that periareolar incisions may result in higher rates of NAC complications. However, studies to date have not specifically investigated this in prepectoral reconstruction. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of incision location on NAC complications in patients undergoing prepectoral breast reconstruction. Methods:. We performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent immediate two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy between 2015 and 2018 at a single institution. We identified two types of incisions utilized: superior periareolar or inframammary fold (IMF). Patient demographics, comorbidities, and surgical details were compared between incision types, as were NAC complications. Results:. A total of 181 consecutive prepectoral breast reconstructions were included for analysis. A superior periareolar incision was used in 113 reconstructions (62%), and an IMF incision was used in 68 reconstructions (38%). There were 33 (18%) total NAC complications in our series. The periareolar incision group had a higher rate of any NAC complication (25% versus 7.4%; P < 0.01), as well as a higher rate of nipple necrosis requiring debridement (9.7% versus 1.5%; P = 0.03). Conclusions:. In patients undergoing immediate two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy, periareolar incisions are associated with an increased risk of NAC complications compared with IMF incisions. For patients who are candidates for either an IMF or periareolar incision, a periareolar incision should be avoided.