Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open (Aug 2023)

The Preferred Design of the Profunda Artery Perforator Flap for Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Transverse or Diagonal?

  • Zack Cohen, MD,
  • Saïd C. Azoury, MD,
  • Jonas A. Nelson, MD, MPH,
  • Kathryn Haglich, BS, MS,
  • Joseph H. Dayan, MD, MBA,
  • Evan Matros, MD, MMSc,
  • Robert J. Allen, Jr, MD

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000005188
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 11, no. 8
p. e5188

Abstract

Read online

Background:. Since its introduction for autologous breast reconstruction in 2010, the profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap has emerged as a preferred choice when an abdominal flap is suboptimal. The traditional transverse design (tPAP) was popularized, given the inconspicuous donor scar. A diagonal design (dPAP) has since evolved to address some of the shortcomings of the tPAP. The authors aimed to compare outcomes of tPAP/dPAP flaps harvested for breast reconstruction by a single surgeon. Methods:. A retrospective review was conducted from 2017 to 2022 of patients undergoing tPAP versus dPAP-based breast reconstruction by a single surgeon at a tertiary cancer center. Patient variables and operative variables were assessed. Need for additional symmetrizing breast procedures were compared. Complications and BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measures were analyzed. Results:. Thirty-nine flaps were used to reconstruct 35 breasts in 24 patients. Average follow-up for the group was 1.8 years. The groups were similar with respect to demographics. The majority of dPAP flaps had two perforators, whereas most tPAP flaps had one perforator. The dPAP flaps had greater average weights, width, and overall surface area. There were no cases of partial/total flap loss. Complications and PROM results were similar between the two groups. Conclusions:. The dPAP design allows for a larger skin paddle and greater tissue harvest and capture of cutaneous perforators, without increasing the risk of complications or compromising satisfaction. It should be considered as a viable option in patients unable to undergo abdominal-based reconstruction. Additional patients and multi-institutional efforts are necessary to better compare advantages of either design.