Comparison of surgical and patient-reported outcomes between 85 profunda artery perforator flaps and 122 deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps as first-choice treatment for breast reconstruction.

[BACKGROUND] The profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap for breast reconstruction was first published in 2012. Since then, many centers implemented its application as second-line treatment for breast reconstruction in cases where patient characteristics make the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap not feasible to perform. In our center, we established the PAP flap as a first-line procedure for a multitude of reasons for a specific patient population. This study describes perioperative measure, clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcome measures in comparison to the gold standard, the DIEP flap.

[METHODS] In this study, we analyzed all PAP flaps and DIEP flaps performed in a single center between March 2018 and December 2020. We present patient characteristics, surgical technique, perioperative care, surgical outcomes, and complications. The Breast-Q was used to assess patient-reported outcome measures.

[RESULTS] A total of 85 PAP flaps and 122 DIEP flaps were performed within 34 months. Average follow-up was 11.6 ± 5.8 months for the PAP group and 11.1 ± 5.8 months for the DIEP group (p = 0.621). Patients' average body mass index was higher in the DIEP flap recipients. Operation time was shorter and ambulation faster in PAP flap recipients. DIEP flap application resulted in higher Breast-Q scores.

[CONCLUSIONS] While the PAP flap demonstrated favorable perioperative measures, outcome measures were better with the DIEP flap. The PAP flap is fairly new and demonstrates high potential while still showing a need for refinement compared to the DIEP flap.