Useful vertical latissimus dorsi flap for partial breast reconstruction in every tumor location

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1609235/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Useful vertical latissimus dorsi flap for partial breast reconstruction in every tumor location

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1609235/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

We conducted a prospective cohort study to evaluate effective technique for breast reconstruction after partial mastectomy due to breast cancer. Depending on the location of the cancer and the amount excised, what method to employ is often difficult to determine. Here, we present a new technique, using the vertical LD flap, that can be used in all partial mastectomies and can almost hide scarring. We also compare these results to the mini-LD flap.

Methods

We analyzed a total of 50 and 47 patients, who underwent breast reconstruction with the mini-LD flap and the vertical LD flap, respectively. Immediately after cancer excision, work on reconstruction began. The skin flap for vertical LD was designed in a planaria shape, such that it may be hidden as much as possible and minimize bulging during closure, and the LD muscle flap was designed with a sufficient distance in the inferior direction.

Results

Our finding showed that the vertical LD flap group required significantly less total operation time than the mini-LD flap group. While the mini-LD flap resulted in a scar that was difficult to hide, the donor site scar of the vertical LD flap could not be seen easily, and no scar was visible on the back.

Conclusions

The vertical LD flap is capable of all partial breast reconstruction, can reconstruct defects in all breast regions, and requires a rather small volume of the flap. The patients show relatively fast recovery after the operation and high patient satisfaction.

vertial latissimus dorsi flap

mini latissimus dorsi flap

partial mastectomy

partial breast reconstruction

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in women and the most common cancer, with 2.3 million new cases diagnosed in 2020. In women, breast cancer accounts for approximately 24.5% of all cancer cases and 15.5% of cancer-related deaths, ranking first in incidence and mortality in most countries in the year 2020. Early-stage breast cancer is usually undergoes operative treatments, which generally include partial mastectomy with radiotherapy and breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy if the invasion is less than approximately 50% and 20% of the total breast volume, respectively). Combined treatment is increasingly performed, as the oncologic safety of the 5-year survival rate is similar to that of mastectomy alone [1–4]. If oncologic safety is confirmed, volume displacement reconstruction is conducted via oncoplastic breast surgery, which is appropriate when a medially located breast defect is incapable of being reconstructed using the surrounding tissues, and when the defect size is > 3 cm [5, 6]. Not performing immediate partial breast reconstruction may lead to unsatisfactory aesthetic outcomes, such as breast distortion or retraction, noticeable volume changes, and secondary shape or position change, of the areolar complex [7].

Thus, depending on the location of the cancer, preoperative breast volume, and the ratio of the excised mass, perforator flaps used vary in nature. The thoracodorsal artery perforator (TDAP) flap, lateral intercostal anterior perforator (LICAP) flap, anterior intercostal artery perforator (AICAP) flap, omental flap, mini latissimus dorsi (LD) flap modified from the classical LD flap, or the muscle-sparing LD flap have been previously reported [8–13]. The mini LD flap, which has a similar design and technique to an extended LD flap, is designed as small as necessary for post-partial mastectomy defects in the cutaneous flap and dissected lesser in the inferior pole of the LD muscle. This is followed by transfer of a smaller volume of the LD flap for reconstruction, compared with the extended LD flap. However, reconstructive breast surgeons face challenges in determining the optimal surgical method when there is a defect in the lower medial portion, close to the midline of the body; it can be difficult to design the incision location of the mini LD flap such that it is hidden by the mid-axillary line. There are reports of customized reconstruction methods according to the location of the breast cancer and the ratio of excision amount to the breast size, with different rationales. However, because of differences in the surgical skills of reconstructive surgeons, and previous studies’ mere summaries of surgical techniques, consensus has yet to be established. Herein, we introduce a useful technique with a vertical LD flap on the mid-axillary line that can be used in all partial breast reconstructions, which largely hides the incision area of the donor site. Comparisons against the mini LD flap are shown in Fig. 1.

Study design

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (revised in 2013). The Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital Institutional Review Board (No. 2019-12-006-002) approved this prospective study, and all patients provided informed consent for their data (including de-identified photographs) to be recorded, analyzed, and published for research purposes.

A total of 50 and 47 patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction with mini LD and vertical LD flaps, respectively, after partial mastectomy from September 2018 to June 2021, were analyzed. Recorded patient characteristics included age, BMI, any preoperative and postoperative appointment notes, postoperative 1 year breast volume assessed using the imaging software Volpara^™ (version 1.5, Volpara Health Technologies), specimen weight, cancer staging, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, flap weight, total operative (op) time, flap elevation time, negative drain indwelling duration, and total drain volume. Patient photometry follow-up was conducted preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at postoperative month (POM) 1, 3, and 6, and postoperative year (POY) 1. The total operation time was defined as the time from patient entry to exit from the operating room, registered in their electronic medical record (EMR). Flap elevation time was calculated as the time between the flap design and elevation photo time. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a pre-discharge satisfaction questionnaire, modified from the breast-Q questionnaire, consisting of seven detailed questions about five items. The questionnaire was evaluated using four scores: very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, and very dissatisfied. Major complications, such as hematoma, seroma, flap loss, necrosis, and minor complications, including dehiscence, swelling, and sloughing, were recorded.

Patient selection

This study was a prospective cohort study. Patient inclusion criteria were as follows: breast cancer patients between the ages of 30 and 60 years who underwent unilateral partial mastectomy to remove one-third of their total breast volume. The following patients were excluded from the study: (I) patients with advanced breast cancer (stages 3 and 4), (II) patients with a history of cognitive impairment who could not complete the self-reported questionnaire, (III) patients with history of any neurologic or musculoskeletal disorder, and (IV) patients with a history of alcohol or drug abuse. Patients with medially located breast cancer, far from the axillary pivot point, were informed that scar formation at the entire donor site may not be covered by a brassiere (bra). Patients were also informed that reconstruction using a mini LD flap could be conducted if the defect size was greatly increased due to a frozen biopsy. Written consent was obtained from the patients prior to enrollment.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted using regression analysis with SPSS software (SPSS IBM 22.0). Correlations between op time, flap elevation time, admission duration, drain indwelling duration and drain total volume according to both techniques, age, BMI, and breast preoperative volume were analyzed.

Preoperative design of a vertical LD flap

The patient was asked to stand in an upright position while wearing a bra and the ipsilateral margin was marked. After removing the bra, the location of the breast cancer was marked and the distance measured from the axillary region. The area covered by the arm was marked on the ipsilateral lateral side of the body, while standing in the attention position. The vertical LD flap that passed through the midline was designed to be at the same distance from the axilla as the cancer. The skin flap was designed in a planaria shape, such that it could be hidden by a bra as much as possible, and the LD muscle flap was designed with sufficient distance in the inferior direction (Fig. 2). The planaria head was designed to minimize axillary bulging during the closure.

Vertical LD flap technique for partial breast reconstruction (Video clip)

The drape was carefully placed to maintain the preoperative design. The cushion was placed on the ipsilateral back for easier cancer excision and axillary lymph node (LN) sampling by the breast surgeon. In addition, the vertical LD flap was designed to be open, without changing its position. First, the vertical LD flap procedure was started immediately after completing the partial mastectomy and sentinel LN biopsy. Approximately 10–15 ccs of 1% lidocaine, mixed with epinephrine, were injected at the subcutaneous level, and the incision was made using a 10-blade to the preoperative design. The flap was elevated using a Bovie device (Bovie Medical Corporation, Clearwater, Florida, USA). As the skin flap was small, the anterior border was preserved by tagging sutures of the skin and the LD muscle to prevent damage to the small perforators between them. Subsequently, the thoracodorsal artery pedicle was located by undermining the axillary direction, and Doppler ultrasound was used to mark the pedicle artery in the direction of the descending branch. Dissection was performed by undermining the inferior direction. The flap was cut from the inferior area through the superior area, considering flap inclusion of the pedicle, using the LigaSure device (LigaSure™, Minneapolis, USA). The flap was elevated to a sufficient length and volume. After branching and descending from the subscapular artery of the brachial artery, the pedicle was preserved around the area, and humoral insertion of the LD muscle was inferiorly dissected with minimal detachment. The main pedicle was macroscopically observed with the naked eye, and the thoracodorsal nerve was cut to allow for smoother movement of the flap. Once pinpoint bleeding was observed at the distal margin of the elevated vertical LD flap, the flap was tunneled and transferred through the axillary LN biopsy area to the breast defect area. The pedicle flap may bulge at the axillary position during tunneling; if severe bulging was observed, normal breast tissue along the route was released through the scoring incision to allow the flap to pass through the tunnel. Skin tissue transfer was conducted only when simultaneous nipple reconstruction was needed. When the nipple was spared, the skin of the vertical LD flap was de-epithelized for breast reconstruction, and fixation suture was performed using 2 − 0 vicryl in three places only on the upper margin of the flap, located on the defect. Then, two negative 400-cc drains were applied to the upper and lower margins of the flap. The donor site was restored to the original position of the vertical LD flap by mining the new anterior border of the LD muscle, and sutured using 2 − 0 vicryl. The patient was placed on the surgical table in a sitting position, and the bra line and arm aligned to appear as a curved line, as much as possible. One 400-cc negative drain was applied, and 4 cc of fibrin glue was evenly sprayed. The operation was completed after layer-by-layer suturing (Fig. 3).

A total of 97 patients, including 50 who underwent immediate breast construction with a mini LD flap and 47 who underwent breast construction with vertical LD flaps, after partial mastectomy, were analyzed during the period from September 2018 to June 2021. The mean age of the patients in the mini LD flap and vertical LD flap groups was 45.4 and 44.3 years, respectively. BMI was 22.5 in the mini LD flap group and 22.8 in the vertical LD flap group. Additionally, 37 (76%), 9 (18%), 1 (4%), 1 (2%), and 0 patients in the mini LD flap group were diagnosed with IDC, DCIS, ILC, mucinous carcinoma, and Phyllodes tumor, respectively, whereas 27 (57.4%), 16 (34%), 0, 3 (4.3%), and 2 (4.3%) patients in the vertical LD flap group were diagnosed with IDC, DCIS, ILC, mucinous carcinoma, and Phyllodes tumor, respectively. The absolute values of the volume differences between the affected and unaffected sides were 21.57, 72.85, and 37.63 ccs in the vertical LD group and 26.61, 32.04, 7.63 ccs in the mini LD group preoperatively and at postoperative 6 months and 1 year, respectively. The specimen weight was 90.0 g in the mini LD flap group and 71.4 g in the vertical LD flap group. The flap weight was 151.7 g and 120.5 g in mini LD flap and vertical LD flap groups, respectively. For axillary surgery, SLNB was performed in 46 (96%) patients in the mini LD flap group and in 30 (100%) patients in the vertical LD flap group. ALND was performed in 2 (4%) patients in the mini LD flap group and in 0 patients in the vertical LD flap group. The total mean op time was 338 min in the mini LD flap group and 256 min in the vertical LD flap group. Flap elevation time was 82.1 min in the mini LD flap group and 61.8 min in the vertical LD flap group. The mean admission duration was 13.1 and 11.6 days in the mini LD flap and vertical LD flap groups, respectively. The mean donor site drain indwelling duration was 11.1 days in the mini LD flap group and 9.2 days in the vertical LD flap group. which underwent drain removal as per strict criteria when subsequent daily drain measurements were under 15 cc, to lessen seroma after drain removal. The total drain volume was 716 cc and 524 cc in the mini LD flap and vertical LD flap groups, respectively (Table 1). In the vertical LD flap group, mass weight, flap weight, op time, flap elevation time, H-V duration, and H-V total volume were statistically significant (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of age. BMI significantly correlated with mass weight, flap weight, H-V duration, and total H-V drain volume. Preoperative breast volume was significantly correlated with mass weight, flap weight, flap elevation time, H-V duration, and H-V drain volume (Table 2). Patient satisfaction was as follows: breast symmetry scores of 3.2 ± 0.2 points for the mini LD flap group and 3.5 ± 0.4 points for the vertical LD flap group; unclothed breast shape scores of 3.1 ± 0.2 and 3.1 ± 0.3 for each group were recorded. Breast shapes on clothing scores were 3.6 ± 0.3 points in the mini LD flap group and 3.8 ± 0.1 in the vertical LD flap group; postoperative pain scores of 3.5 ± 0.1 points in the mini LD flap group and 3.7 ± 0.2 points in vertical LD flap group were reported. The scores for donor site scars were 3.7 ± 0.5 points in the mini LD flap group and 3.8 ± 0.4 points in the vertical LD flap group. Overall outcome scores were 3.7 ± 0.2 points in the mini LD flap group and 3.8 ± 0.1 points in the vertical LD flap group. Scores of 3.5 ± 0.1 points in the mini LD flap group and 3.8 ± 0.4 points in the vertical LD flap group were given for the item “Would you decide to undergo reconstruction with this operation method if you could go back to the earlier surgery?“ (Table 3).

Table 1

Patient demographics.
	Mini LD	Vertical LD
No. of patients	50	47
Factors	Value (%)	Value (%)
Age	45.4 ± 6.8	44.3 ± 13.1
BMI	22.5 ± 2.7	22.8 ± 3.2 27(57.4%) 16(34.0%) 0(0%) 2(4.3%) 2(4.3%) 368.85cc 71.4(± 54.1) 120.5(± 57.4) 30(100%) 0(0%) 256.0 ± 60.2 61.8 ± 14.0 11.6 ± 2.3 9.2 ± 2.3 524.4 ± 184.1
Diagnosis IDC DCIS ILC Mucinous carcinoma Phyllodes tumor Brease volume Specimen weight	37 (76.0%) 9 (18.0%) 1 (4.0%) 1 (2.0%) 0(0%) 395.6cc 90.9(± 61.0) 151.7(± 75.9) 46 (96%) 2 (4%) 338.4 ± 49.5 82.1 ± 41.4 13.1 ± 5.9 11.1 ± 2.1 716.4 ± 306.4
Flap weight Axillar surgery SLNB AS Total OP time Flap elevation time Admission duration Drain indwelling duration Drain total volume

Table 2

Statistical analysis using linear regression test.
	Mass weight	Flap weight	OP time	Flap elevation time	Admission duration	Drain indwelling duration	Drain total volume
Group	0.002**	< 0.001**	< 0.001**	0.005**	0.135	< 0.001**	0.001**
age	0.832	0.786	0.445	0.297	0.533	0.435	0.599
BMI	0.002**	0.007**	0.195	0.471	0.128	0.010*	0.017*
breast volume	< 0.001**	0.004**	0.598	0.007**	0.166	0.040*	0.016*
** <0.01, *<0.05, BMI ; body mass index, OP ; operation

Table 3

Patient satisfaction
Questionnaire	Very Satisfied (4)- Somewhat satisfied (3) - Somewhat dissatisfied (2)- Very dissatisfied (1)
Questionnaire	Mini LD flap	Vertical LD flap
Breast symmetry The symmetry of your reconstructed breast compared with contralateral side?	3.2 ± 0.2	3.5 ± 0.4
Breast shape The shape of your unclothed reconstructed breast?	3.1 ± 0.2	3.1 ± 0.3
How natural is the shape of your reconstructed breast on clothing?	3.6 ± 0.3	3.8 ± 0.1
Postoperative pain How tolerable were you with postoperative pain?	3.5 ± 0.1	3.7 ± 0.2
Donor site scar How much are you satisfied with your scar considering length and shape?	3.7 ± 0.5	3.8 ± 0.4
Overall outcome How much are you satisfied with the overall outcome of the operation?	3.7 ± 0.2	3.8 ± 0.1
Would you decide to reconstruct with this operation method even if you go back to before surgery?	3.5 ± 0.1	3.8 ± 0.4

The mean follow-up period was 1.31 years and 1.64 years in the vertical and mini LD groups, respectively. No major complications were observed after the operation, and the donor site seroma was resolved through bedside aspiration during the follow-up period within 3 weeks after discharge. Quilting sutures minimized dead space at the donor site and are suggested to have reduced the required follow-up period of donor site seromas. Two cases each of seroma, and one case of linear necrotic changes at the suture site, in the mini LD and vertical LD groups, were resolved with simple dressings or additional revision operations.

The LD flap is a commonly used technique in reconstructive surgery. The LD flap is an autologous tissue that can cover a large area, for defects due to trauma, wide excision, or tumors. The LD flap was first reported in 1906, by Tansini and was used for the first time in breast reconstruction in 1970 [14–16]. It is one of the most commonly used flaps in reconstruction of small to moderate breast volumes. In a recent study, the transfer of the unilateral LD muscle to the breast, with an extended LD flap, did not interfere with shoulder function or daily life [17]. Mastectomy is a surgical treatment for breast cancer, which includes the aim of performing immediate breast reconstruction, simultaneously, after confirmation of oncological safety. When patients have small breast volumes, total mastectomy, followed by reconstruction, is a viable option. However, in most cases, recent reports demonstrate equivalent oncological safety in breast reconstruction after partial mastectomy and total mastectomy, with shorter operation times and better esthetic outcomes [18–20]. Therefore, deciding on total mastectomy, to avoid radiotherapy, does not secure superiority in oncological safety or esthetic outcome.

Various oncoplastic breast surgery techniques have been reported after partial mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery. Algorithms select reconstruction methods, such as the TDAP, AICAP, LICAP, mini LD flap, and omental flap, for the volume replacement technique, according to the size, shape, and location of the breast cancer [21, 22]. However, as there are limitations, differences, and personal preferences in the training of reconstructive surgeons, the adequate use of all reported techniques is challenging. In addition, the use of a perforator flap requires an advanced surgical technique and may be difficult due to anatomical variation. Therefore, this study reports a useful technique that can control the distance according to the defect, by designing an LD flap pedicle of the thoracodorsal artery to the anterior border (mid-axillary region).

Our technique provides easier access for the surgeon than perforator flap surgery. It can properly reconstruct the breast, even if the location and range of the cancer change slightly. First, elevation is started after checking the border of the axillary area, from where the thoracodorsal artery branches off, followed by incision of the flap design. This design is upward and downward undermining, releasing the thoracodorsal artery in the axillary direction, and cutting the thoracodorsal nerve to prevent jerking and extension of the range of flap movement.

With reference to the macroscopically visible pedicle, the LD flap was marked and descended downward; the route that entered the muscle was marked as thoroughly as possible using Doppler ultrasound. A previous study investigated the vascular pattern of the LD in cadavers [23]. To separate only the descending branch, more volume was required, and in some cases, the pedicle distance was sufficient [23]. While minimizing damage to the pedicle, the inferior part was cut to secure enough distance and the necessary muscles separated. Once the pedicle was visible with the naked eye, the flap was exfoliated while preserving the pedicle with minimal detachment of the uppermost humoral attachment area. This limits effects on shoulder function or limitation of motion. The flap was designed with a planarian head shape because an oval design of the flap may cause extra remnants of bulging skin in the axillary area; as the LD muscle passes through, these extra remnants may seem more prominent. Therefore, the flap was designed with a planarian head shape with the uppermost vertex pulled down in the inferior direction, according to the principle of an advancement flap, thereby relieving any axillary bulge and concealing possible axillary scars behind the brassiere’s inner area. Additionally, the lower part of the flap was designed to allow the linear scar of the donor site to maintain the S-line from the waist to the buttocks. As such, reconstruction can be conducted only through the incision of the LD muscle flap, without designing the skin flap. However, more muscle elevation is required to resolve the same volume of skin flap, and skin flap design is important, as atrophy may occur in future. Fat injection may be considered; however, the engraftment rate varies depending on the patient, and multiple re-operations may be necessary if insufficient amounts of fat are injected [24–26]. Furthermore, when the nipple or breast skin is excised due to involvement of cancer cells, simultaneous nipple reconstruction can be performed, and breast skin defects can be adequately covered [27, 28].

In this study, the mini LD flap group that underwent partial breast reconstruction using only a portion of the LD flap was used as the control group for comparison. Our findings showed that the vertical LD flap group required significantly less total operative time and flap elevation time than the mini LD flap group. This finding may be attributed to the following reasons: first, the surgery was conducted in the supine position without changing the patient's position, reducing the operation time. A vertical LD flap operation can be initiated without waiting for negative frozen biopsy results of the specimen. If cancer cells remain, additional excision can be performed by breast surgeons while prioritizing oncologic safety, and this can be compensated by further elevation of the vertical LD flap. Second, reconstruction with the vertical LD flap is easy to perform, as the long axis of the flap design coincides with the direction of the surgical field, whereas a classical mini LD flap may have the skin flap long axis perpendicular to the direction of the surgical approach. Thus, the operative field of view may be limited, affecting the total operative time. Finally, a vertical LD flap was used for smaller defects, which would have reduced the operation field. The transverse long linear scar at the back, covered by the underwear, may not be visible to the patient; however, the surgical scar may be visible when the patient wears a swimsuit or summer clothing. In contrast, the donor site scar of the vertical LD flap could not be seen when the arm was lowered, and no scar was visible on the back. Moreover, restoration of the original muscle position by undermining the remnant LD muscle on the back side, after transfer of the vertical LD flap to the breast defect region, cannot be performed with the transverse design.

Breast volume analysis by Volpara^™ readings showed a strong correlation with actual mastectomy volume measurements in a previous study [29]. The volume difference analysis between the affected and unaffected sides of the breast demonstrated fewer differences in the vertical LD group at the 1-year postoperative follow-up, although the difference was not statistically significant. These objective data are considered to correlate deeply with breast symmetry, which is one of the most important factors in breast surgery and requires further analysis (Table 1).

However, these advantages do not lead to the complete replacement of partial reconstruction techniques, including the mini LD flap. If more than one-third of the breast volume is removed, a moderate volume of the flap is needed. In such cases, a mini LD flap is required. Patients must be fully informed about these possible intraoperative variations prior to surgery, to determine the most suitable surgical technique. Although a longitudinal extension of the vertical LD flap design may allow the use of an extended LD flap, a scar that is visible to the patient may be formed. In addition, the medial part can only be reached after changing the patient’s position to the decubitus position in the middle of the operation. This eliminates the advantages of the vertical LD flap, and longitudinal extension of the vertical LD flap design is not considered an appropriate indication. Therefore, a vertical LD flap can reconstruct defects in all breast regions and is very useful as a replacement reconstruction technique that requires a rather small flap volume, especially in patients with a small breast volume. The statistical results showed relatively fast recovery, high postoperative patient satisfaction, and high total patient satisfaction (Table 3). As such, a vertical LD flap is a pedicled flap among partial breast reconstruction techniques and has the same pedicle as an extended LD flap with great accessibility. A vertical LD flap may have positive effects on the algorithm of breast reconstruction using the LD flap, which allows reconstruction regardless of tumor location in the breast. Although less than one-third of the total breast volume was incised, a vertical LD flap may be an appropriate indication when the volume displacement technique is not feasible with the remaining tissues of small breast volumes if the nipple and the breast skin are excised. Herein, we report a vertical LD flap modified from an ordinary mini LD flap, which is a useful technique, capable of being used for all partial breast reconstructions. Small breast cancer in the upper lateral region is the best indication for the use of a vertical LD flap, and this technique allows excision of the excised breast skin (Figs. 4, 5). Reconstruction of defects in the lower medial parts, which requires the longest flap to reach the defect, also showed good long-term esthetic outcomes after the operation (Fig. 6). Partial mastectomy in the inframammary fold line, for defects of the lower lateral part, was also associated with a good outcome and no scars on the breast mound (Fig. 7). If the nipple is also involved, simultaneous nipple reconstruction can be performed using the skin flap of the vertical LD flap (Fig. 8). These advantages are considered reasons for superior patient psychological satisfaction (Table 3) and subsequent high patient satisfaction.

However, our study has the following limitations: first, as breast-conserving surgery becomes increasingly popular, long-term locoregional recurrence rates must be monitored, and the potential need for completion mastectomy and whole breast reconstruction (down the line in the event of a local recurrence) is a disadvantage of using an LD flap for partial breast reconstruction; however, our study only had a brief follow-up period. In the reconstruction of defects in the medial part of the breast, vertical flap designs may be slightly downward, such that the donor site may not be hidden under the bra, and as a result, the scar may be visible to the patient. Although a vertical LD flap is more applicable for defects regardless of their location, it has limitations in replacing the classic LD flap technique or a mini LD flap, in cases of moderate to large breast defects. Lastly, mild bulging is observed in the axillary area where the pedicle muscle has passed, although bulging is less than that with the mini LD flap or the extended LD flap techniques. Bulging is improved after six months in most cases; however, delicate procedures may be required to minimize muscles close to the pedicle. Furthermore, if the descending and transverse branches of the thoracodorsal artery diverge in the distal region, separation may not be possible with only the descending branch.

The vertical LD flap is applicable in all partial breast reconstructions, regardless of the breast defect region. It also showed statistical significance in shorter admission and operation times with higher patient satisfaction compared with the classic LD flap technique in the present study. Although further evaluations are required, the classic mini LD flap with a vertical LD flap may be an alternative technique for future partial breast reconstructions.

Author’s contribution

Jong Ho Lee, Jeong Yeop Ryu, Joon Seok Lee and Ho Yong Park contributed to conception and design of the study. Jeong Yeop Ryu, Joon Seok Lee organized the database. Jeong Yeop Ryu and Jong Ho lee performed the statistical analysis. Ho Yun Chung and Byung Chae Cho wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Ho Yun Chung, Byung Chae Cho, Byungju Kang, Jeeyeon Lee wrote sections of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version

Acknowledgement

Not applicable

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Consent for publication

I understand that the information will be published without my/my child or ward’s/my relative’s (circle as appropriate) name attached, but that full anonymity cannot be guaranteed. I understand that the text and any pictures or videos published in the article will be freely available on the internet and may be seen by the general public. The pictures, videos and text may also appear on other websites or in print, may be translated into other languages or used for commercial purposes. I have been offered the opportunity to read the manuscript

Informed consent from all subjects and/or their legal guardian(s) for publication of identifying information/images is obtained

Ethical approval and consent to participate

All patients provided informed consent for their data (including de-identified photographs) to be recorded, analyzed, and published for research purposes." in the section " ethical approval and consent to participate

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript

Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1227–1232.
Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1233–1241.
Huston TL, Simmons RM. Locally recurrent breast cancer after conservation therapy. Am J Surg. 2005;189:229–235.
Lee J, Jung JH, Kim WW, et al. Five-year oncologic outcomes of volume displacement procedures after partial mastectomy for breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2017;17:70–75.
Yang JD, Lee JW, Cho YK, et al. Surgical techniques for personalized oncoplastic surgery in breast cancer patients with small- to moderate-sized breasts (part 1): Volume displacement. J Breast Cancer. 2012;15:1–6.
Yang JD, Kim MC, Lee JW, et al. Usefulness of oncoplastic volume replacement techniques after breast conserving surgery in small to moderate-sized breasts. Arch Plast Surg. 2012;39:489–496.
Audretsch WP. Reconstruction of the partial mastectomy defect: classification and method. In: Spear SL, Willey SC, Robb GL, et al, editors. Surgery of the breast: principles and art. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006. p. 179–216.
Hamdi M, Van Landuyt K, et al. Pedicled perforator flaps. In: Spear SL, Willey SC, Robb GL, editors. Surgery of the breast: principles and art. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006. p. 833–846.
Masia J, Clavero JA, Larrañaga JR, Alomar X, Pons G, Serret P. Multidetector-row computed tomography in the planning of abdominal perforator flaps. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59:594–599.
Hamdi M, Van Landuyt K, de Frene B, Roche N, Blondeel P, Monstrey S. The versatility of the inter-costal artery perforator (ICAP) flaps. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59:644–652.
Hamdi M, Wolfli J, Van Landuyt K. Partial mastectomy reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg. 2007;34:51–62.
Yang JD, Lee J, Lee JS, Kim EK, Park CS, Park HY. Aesthetic scar-less mastectomy and breast reconstruction. J Breast Cancer. 2021;24:22–33.
Elzawawy EM, Kelada MN, Al Karmouty AF. Design of mini latissimus dorsi flap based on thoracodorsal vascular patterns. Ann Plast Surg. 2018;80:607–615.
Ribuffo D, Cigna E, Gerald GL, et al. Iginio Tansini revisited. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015;19:2477–2481.
Olivari N. The latissimus flap. Br J Plast Surg. 1976;29:126–128.
Muhlbauer W, Olbrisch R. The latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap for breast reconstruction. Chir Plast. 1977;4:27.
Lee JS, Park E, Lee JH, et al. Alteration in skeletal posture between breast reconstruction with latissimus dorsi flap and mastectomy: A prospective comparison study. Gland Surg. 2021;10:1587–1597.
Lee J, Jung JH, Kim WW, Hwang SO, Kang JG, Baek J, Yang JD, Lee JW, Park HY. Oncologic outcomes of volume replacement technique after partial mastectomy for breast cancer: a single center analysis. Surg Oncol. 2015 Mar;24(1):35–40.
Lee J, Jung JH, Kim WW, Hwang SO, Chae YS, Lee SJ, Yang JD, Lee JW, Park HY. Five-Year Oncologic Outcomes of Volume Displacement Procedures After Partial Mastectomy for Breast Cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2017 Feb;17(1):70–75.
Lee J, Jung JH, Kim WW, Chae YS, Lee SJ, Park HY. Comparison of 5-year oncological outcomes of breast cancer based on surgery type. ANZ J Surg. 2018 May;88(5):E395-E399
Mericli AF, Szpalski C, Schaverien MV, et al. The latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap is a safe and effective method of partial breast reconstruction in the setting of breast-conserving therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:927e-935e.
Youssif S, Hassan Y, Tohamy A, et al. Pedicled local flaps: A reliable reconstructive tool for partial breast defects. Gland Surg. 2019;8:527–536.
Cai R, Xie Z, Zhou L, et al. Pedicled descending branch latissimus dorsi mini-flap for repairing partial mastectomy defect: A new technique. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6:e1692.
Santanelli di Pompeo F, Laporta R, Sorotos M, Pagnoni M, Falesiedi F, Longo B. Latissimus dorsi flap for total autologous immediate breast reconstruction without implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134:871e-879e.
Economides JM, Song DH. Latissimus dorsi and immediate fat transfer (LIFT) for complete autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6:e1656.
Demiri EC, Dionyssiou DD, Tsimponis A, Goula CO, Pavlidis LC, Spyropoulou GA. Outcomes of fat-augmented latissimus dorsi (FALD) flap versus implant-based latissimus dorsi flap for delayed post-radiation breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2018;42:692–701.
Lee JH, Ryu JY, Lee JH, et al. Simultaneous nipple reconstruction in autologous breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2021;10:2966–2977.
Lee JH, Ryu JY, Lee JH, et al. Simultaneous nipple reconstruction in autologous breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2021;10:2966–2977.
Teo I, Whelehan P, Macaskill JE, Vinnicombe S, Munnoch DA, Evans A. Volpara™ as a measurement tool for breast volume. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016 Apr;69(4):581–2.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Major revision
13 Jun, 2022
Reviews received at journal
09 Jun, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
18 May, 2022
Reviews received at journal
16 May, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
06 May, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
06 May, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
06 May, 2022
Editor invited by journal
05 May, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
05 May, 2022
First submitted to journal
29 Apr, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Useful vertical latissimus dorsi flap for partial breast reconstruction in every tumor location

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Study design

Patient selection

Statistical analysis

Preoperative design of a vertical LD flap

Vertical LD flap technique for partial breast reconstruction (Video clip)

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1