Clinical Outcomes Following Profunda Artery Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

[BACKGROUND] There is a lack of reliable evidence on the surgical outcomes of profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap breast reconstruction. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate its safety and compare it with deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap, aiming to offer more information on whether the PAP flap was an ideal alternative for autologous breast reconstruction.

[METHODS] PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched to retrieve relevant articles. The postoperative complication rates following PAP reconstruction were pooled. Mean differences of patients' age, BMI, mastectomy weight and flap weight between PAP and DIEP group were calculated, and relative risk was estimated to compare their incidence of complications.

[RESULTS] Twenty-four articles reporting 1612 PAP flap breast reconstructions were included. The surgical success rate was 99.6%; the incidence of total and partial flap loss was 0.4% and 0.0%; the incidence of infection, hematoma, seroma, fat necrosis and wound dehiscence in recipient sites was 0.3%, 1.4%, 1.0%, 3.3% and 0.3%, respectively; the incidence of infection, hematoma, seroma, wound dehiscence and sensory disturbance in donor sites was 2.0%, 0.9%, 3.5%, 9.2% and 0.6%, respectively. Compared to the DIEP group, the average age, BMI, mastectomy weight and final flap weight were significantly lower in the PAP group. No significant difference was observed in terms of flap failure, breast fat necrosis and donor site wound dehiscence.

[CONCLUSIONS] This systematic review demonstrates similar levels of postoperative morbidities for the PAP and DIEP flaps with some subtle differences and verifies the PAP flap as a second-line treatment for patients when the DIEP is unavailable or undesirable.

[LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III] This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .