ArticleCureus2026
Navigating the Challenges of Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator (DIEAP) Flap Harvest in a Scarred Abdomen.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEAP) flap is the gold standard for autologous breast reconstruction, offering reliable perfusion and minimal donor-site morbidity. However, prior abdominal surgeries and scars may complicate flap harvest by altering vascular pathways, causing fibrosis, and limiting flap design. This study evaluates intraoperative challenges, outcomes, and patient-reported satisfaction in DIEP flap reconstruction in scarred abdomens. Methods A prospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary care plastic surgery center (2022-2024). A total of 20 female patients with visible abdominal scars undergoing immediate or delayed DIEAP flap reconstruction were included. All underwent CT angiography (CTA) for perforator mapping. Data collected included demographics, scar types, intraoperative findings, complications, and postoperative outcomes. The BREAST-Q reconstruction module scores were used to assess patient satisfaction. Results The mean age was 40.6 years (SD 8.9) with a mean hospital stay of 9.2 days (SD 2.9). Indications included invasive breast carcinoma (n=16) and phyllodes tumor (n=4). Scar types included Pfannenstiel (n=14), subcostal (n=6), periumbilical (n=3), and paramedian (n=2); seven patients had multiple scars. Intraoperative challenges included fibrosis, difficult perforator dissection, and restricted flap design. One index case with Pfannenstiel and periumbilical scars demonstrated superficial venous dominance requiring venous supercharging, which salvaged the flap. Recipient-site complications occurred in two patients (10%), and donor-site complications in four (20%). All flaps survived, with no total flap loss. The BREAST-Q scores demonstrated high psychosocial satisfaction (mean 81.5) and strong surgeon-related outcomes, though abdominal satisfaction was lower (64.8). Conclusions The DIEAP flap reconstruction in scarred abdomens is safe and effective, though scar pattern significantly influences planning and harvest. Preoperative CTA and intraoperative adaptability, including additional procedures like venous supercharging when necessary, enable excellent outcomes even in complex cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.