Comparing Transabdominal and Totally Extraperitoneal Approaches for Minimally Invasive DIEP Flap Harvest: A Systematic Review.
Abstract
[INTRODUCTION] Minimally invasive techniques for DIEP flap harvest, including transabdominal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) approaches, have been reported to be beneficial in reducing morbidity; however, direct comparative synthesis between these methods remains scarce, limiting consensus on the optimal approach.
[METHOD] Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central for prospective and retrospective studies on robotic or laparoscopic DIEP harvest in breast reconstruction. Cadaveric studies and non-DIEP procedures were excluded. Primary operative outcomes included harvest time, type of robot, fascial incision length, intramuscular length, and intraoperative complications, while secondary clinical outcomes were postoperative complications, length of stay, and pain. A structured narrative synthesis was conducted using pooled descriptive data, without inferential statistical analysis.
[RESULTS] Ten studies were included, including six describing TAPP harvest, two robotic TEP, and two laparoscopic TEP. Reported unilateral reconstruction times averaged 442.6 ± 63.4 min for TAPP and 460.3 ± 90.4 min for TEP, while bilateral procedures averaged 682.6 ± 115.1 min for TAPP compared with 453.0 ± 81.5 min for TEP. Fascial incisions were longer with TAPP (3.75 ± 1.34 cm) compared to TEP (2.59 ± 0.49 cm), and intramuscular pedicle dissection length was greater in TAPP (4.1 ± 0.7 vs. 2.25 ± 0.27 cm). No study reported bowel injury or postoperative ileus, and overall complication rates-including vessel avulsion, flap loss, infection, and seroma-were similar. Postoperative pain scores were 1.9 ± 0.9 in TAPP versus 2.3 ± 0.9 in TEP, while hospital stay averaged 3.9 ± 1.3 days for TAPP and 4.5 ± 0.9 days for TEP.
[CONCLUSION] Both TAPP and TEP appear safe and effective for minimally invasive DIEP flap harvest. Trends suggest bilateral TAPP requires longer operative times, while TEP results in shorter fascial incisions and had shorter intramuscular pedicle lengths. Pain and complication rates were comparable, although study heterogeneity and small sample sizes limit generalizability. Larger, prospective comparative studies are essential to better define technique selection.
[METHOD] Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central for prospective and retrospective studies on robotic or laparoscopic DIEP harvest in breast reconstruction. Cadaveric studies and non-DIEP procedures were excluded. Primary operative outcomes included harvest time, type of robot, fascial incision length, intramuscular length, and intraoperative complications, while secondary clinical outcomes were postoperative complications, length of stay, and pain. A structured narrative synthesis was conducted using pooled descriptive data, without inferential statistical analysis.
[RESULTS] Ten studies were included, including six describing TAPP harvest, two robotic TEP, and two laparoscopic TEP. Reported unilateral reconstruction times averaged 442.6 ± 63.4 min for TAPP and 460.3 ± 90.4 min for TEP, while bilateral procedures averaged 682.6 ± 115.1 min for TAPP compared with 453.0 ± 81.5 min for TEP. Fascial incisions were longer with TAPP (3.75 ± 1.34 cm) compared to TEP (2.59 ± 0.49 cm), and intramuscular pedicle dissection length was greater in TAPP (4.1 ± 0.7 vs. 2.25 ± 0.27 cm). No study reported bowel injury or postoperative ileus, and overall complication rates-including vessel avulsion, flap loss, infection, and seroma-were similar. Postoperative pain scores were 1.9 ± 0.9 in TAPP versus 2.3 ± 0.9 in TEP, while hospital stay averaged 3.9 ± 1.3 days for TAPP and 4.5 ± 0.9 days for TEP.
[CONCLUSION] Both TAPP and TEP appear safe and effective for minimally invasive DIEP flap harvest. Trends suggest bilateral TAPP requires longer operative times, while TEP results in shorter fascial incisions and had shorter intramuscular pedicle lengths. Pain and complication rates were comparable, although study heterogeneity and small sample sizes limit generalizability. Larger, prospective comparative studies are essential to better define technique selection.
추출된 의학 개체 (NER)
| 유형 | 영어 표현 | 한국어 / 풀이 | UMLS CUI | 출처 | 등장 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 시술 | diep flap
|
피판재건술 | dict | 3 | |
| 시술 | flap
|
피판재건술 | dict | 1 | |
| 해부 | breast
|
유방 | dict | 1 | |
| 합병증 | seroma
|
장액종 | dict | 1 | |
| 합병증 | infection
|
감염 | dict | 1 |
MeSH Terms
Female; Humans; Epigastric Arteries; Laparoscopy; Mammaplasty; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Operative Time; Perforator Flap; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Tissue and Organ Harvesting
🔗 함께 등장하는 도메인
이 논문이 속한 카테고리와 같은 논문에서 자주 함께 다뤄지는 카테고리들
관련 논문
- The impact of three-dimensional simulation and virtual reality technologies on surgical decision-making and postoperative satisfaction in aesthetic surgery: a preliminary study.
- Cutaneous fistula of the breast: A complication of cosmetic autologous fat transfer.
- Epidermal inclusion cyst after breast reduction mammoplasty.
- Penetrating globe injury following periocular hyaluronic acid filler injection: A case report.
- From Palliation After Angiosarcoma Resection to Totally Autologous Aesthetic Breast Reconstruction Combining Kiss Latissimus Dorsi Flap and Contralateral Breast Sharing Internal Mammary Artery Perforator Flap: A Case Report.