Forskningsradar
← Hälsa & medicin
Hälsa & medicin 5.7 🇸🇪

Surgeons map best vein routes to prevent breast reconstruction failures

Researchers have systematized vein-selection strategies for a critical decision point in breast reconstruction surgery, where choosing the wrong drainage vessel causes up to 40% of flap failures. The clinical atlas gives surgeons evidence-based guidance to improve outcomes and reduce costly revision procedures.

Originaltitel: Atlas of recipient vessels for the superficial venous system of DIEP-flaps – a systematic literature review and clinical practice review

Abstrakt

BACKGROUND: Venous congestion contributes to up to 40% of failures in abdominally based free flaps, underscoring the importance of optimising superficial venous drainage in deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction. The superficial inferior epigastric vein (SIEV) is sometimes essential to flap outflow. This systematic review investigates the choice of recipient vessels for superficial venous supercharging. METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to a PROSPERO-registered protocol (CRD42022353591) and PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies describing SIEV recipient vessels or vessel-selection algorithms. Extracted data included study design, recipient vessel, graft use, and decision strategies. A clinical practice review was also conducted at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, where prophylactic SIEV-cephalic vein (CV) anastomosis has been used for over two decades. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were included. Reported recipient vessels outside the flap comprised, for example, the following veins: internal mammary, cephalic, thoracoacromial, and thoracodorsal. Intra-flap options included anastomoses to branches or the caudal end of the deep inferior epigastric vein. Three studies described interposition grafts, and eight proposed selection algorithms, with no consensus. The internal mammary vein was most frequently used. At Sahlgrenska, a short axillary-fold incision provides consistent and cosmetically favourable access to the CV, adding minimal operative time. CONCLUSION: Recipient vessel selection for SIEV anastomosis remains highly variable in the literature. Long-term institutional experience supports the CV as a reliable and versatile option. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate outcomes.

Generera ett redaktionellt utkast på svenska