Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37584773›Full record

ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024

Latissimus dorsi flap for breast reconstruction: a large single-institution evaluation of surgical outcome and complications.

Maggie Banys-Paluchowski, Laura Brus, Natalia Krawczyk, Sophie Valeria Kopperschmidt, Maria Luisa Gasparri, Nana Bündgen, Achim Rody, Lars Hanker, Franziska Hemptenmacher, Peter Paluchowski

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Maggie Banys-Paluchowski *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Schleswig Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany. Maggie.Banys-Paluchowski@uksh.de.ORCID 0000-0002-2374-9482
Laura Brus *Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics and Breast Cancer Center, Regio Klinikum Pinneberg, Pinneberg, Germany.
Natalia KrawczykDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Sophie Valeria KopperschmidtPractice for Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Dr. Ganders and Dr. Hemminger, Hamburg, Germany.
Maria Luisa GasparriDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ospedale Regionale di Lugano EOC, Lugano, Switzerland.
Nana BündgenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Schleswig Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Achim RodyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Schleswig Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Lars HankerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Schleswig Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Franziska HemptenmacherDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Schleswig Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Peter PaluchowskiDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics and Breast Cancer Center, Regio Klinikum Pinneberg, Pinneberg, Germany.
University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DERegio Kliniken · DEHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEOspedale regionale di Lugano · CHUniversitäres Kinderwunschzentrum Lübeck · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe use of autologous tissues is considered gold standard for patients undergoing breast reconstruction and is the preferred method in the post-radiation setting. Although the latissimus dorsi flap (LDF) has been replaced by abdominal flaps as technique of choice, it remains a valuable option in several specific clinical situations and its use has been regaining popularity in recent years. In this work, we present an 18-year retrospective analysis of a single-institution single-surgeon experience with LDF-based reconstruction with focus on early complications and reconstructive failures.

methodsHospital records of all patients undergoing breast surgery for any reason in the Certified Breast Cancer Center, Regio Klinikum Pinneberg, Germany between April, 1st 2005 and October, 31st 2022 were reviewed. 142 consecutive LDF-based reconstructive procedures were identified. Detailed information was gathered on patient characteristics, treatment-related factors, and complications.

resultsOne hundred forty patients (139 female, 1 male) received 142 LDF-based surgeries. The flap was used mainly for immediate breast reconstruction with or without implant (83% of patients), followed by defect coverage after removal of a large tumor (7%), implant-to-flap conversion with or without placement of a new implant (6%), and delayed post-mastectomy reconstruction (4%). The use of LDF decreased between 2005 and 2020 (2005: 17, 2006: 13, 2007: 14, 2008: 16, 2009: 5, 2010: 9, 2011: 8, 2012: 3, 2013: 10, 2014: 8, 2015: 8, 2016: 7, 2017: 7, 2018: 4, 2019: 4, 2020: 2, 2021: 6, 2022: 4). Surgery was performed for invasive breast cancer in 78%, ductal carcinoma in situ in 20% and other reasons such as genetic mutation in 1% of patients. Ipsilateral radiation therapy was received by 12% of patients prior to LDF surgery and by 37% after the surgery. 25% of patients were smokers. The median duration of surgery, including all procedures conducted simultaneously such as e.g., mastectomy, axillary surgery, or implant placement, was 117 min (range 56-205). Patients stayed in the hospital for a median of 7 days (range 2-23 days). The most common complication was seroma (26%), followed by wound dehiscence (8%), surgical site infection (7%), partial skin and/or nipple necrosis of any size (7%) and hematoma requiring surgical evacuation (2%). 19% of all patients required seroma aspiration or drainage, mostly at the donor site and performed under ultrasound guidance in the ambulatory setting. Flap loss due to necrosis occurred in 2% of patients.

conclusionsLatissimus dorsi flap is a well-established surgical technique commonly used for immediate breast reconstruction as well as defect coverage in locally advanced breast cancer. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the largest single-surgeon analyses of early complications in patients receiving LDF. As expected, seroma was the most common complication observed in nearly one third of patients and requiring a therapeutic intervention in every fifth patient. Serious adverse events occurred rarely, and flap loss rate was very low.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammaplastySuperficial Back MusclesFemaleHumansMaleMastectomyNecrosisRetrospective StudiesSeromaTreatment OutcomeAutologous reconstructionBreast cancerBreast reconstructionLatissimus dorsi flapThoracic reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID37584773
PMCPMC10770241
OpenAlexW4385850665

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.