Scholarlink

Background <p>Although abdominal flaps remain the gold standard for autologous breast reconstruction, their use in low-BMI patients—particularly in bilateral cases or when matching a contralateral large breast—can be limited by concerns about insufficient volume. The lumbar artery perforator (LAP) flap has emerged as a potential alternative. This study evaluated its volumetric adequacy in lean patients using computed tomographic angiography (CTA)-based analysis.</p> Methods <p>Between 2019 and 2024, patients with BMI&#xa0;≤&#xa0;25 who underwent abdominal flap-based breast reconstruction were retrospectively reviewed. Flap volumes were assessed using CTA. LAP flap volumes were compared with (1) 50% of estimated abdominal flap volume to simulate bilateral reconstruction and (2) estimated abdominal flap volumes based on inset rates from bipedicled cases. Comparisons were stratified by BMI: &lt;&#xa0;23 and 23–25.</p> Results <p>A total of 177 patients were included. The estimated abdominal and LAP flap volumes were 695.0 and 486.6&#xa0;cm<sup>3</sup>, respectively, both positively correlated with BMI. The LAP-to-abdominal flap volume ratio increased as BMI decreased. LAP flap volume exceeded 1.0 relative to 50% of abdominal volume in over 90% of cases, especially in the BMI&#xa0;&lt;&#xa0;23 group. In bipedicled DIEP flap cases, the average abdominal inset ratio was 0.84; accordingly, the adjusted LAP-to-abdominal flap volume ratio was 0.87 overall and 0.92 in the BMI&#xa0;&lt;&#xa0;23 group.</p> Conclusions <p>The LAP flap volume was found to be comparable to that of the abdominal flap in a meaningful proportion of lean patients. These findings suggest it may serve as a reasonable alternative in cases requiring bilateral or bipedicled abdominal flap reconstruction.</p> Level of Evidence III <p>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 <a href="http://www.springer.com/00266">www.springer.com/00266</a>.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Volumetric Feasibility of Lumbar Artery Perforator Flaps Compared to Abdominal Flaps for Breast Reconstruction in Low-BMI Patients: A CT-Based Study

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月28日

查看全文
  • Jisu Kim,
  • Kyeong-Tae Lee,
  • Goo-Hyun Mun

摘要

Background

Although abdominal flaps remain the gold standard for autologous breast reconstruction, their use in low-BMI patients—particularly in bilateral cases or when matching a contralateral large breast—can be limited by concerns about insufficient volume. The lumbar artery perforator (LAP) flap has emerged as a potential alternative. This study evaluated its volumetric adequacy in lean patients using computed tomographic angiography (CTA)-based analysis.

Methods

Between 2019 and 2024, patients with BMI ≤ 25 who underwent abdominal flap-based breast reconstruction were retrospectively reviewed. Flap volumes were assessed using CTA. LAP flap volumes were compared with (1) 50% of estimated abdominal flap volume to simulate bilateral reconstruction and (2) estimated abdominal flap volumes based on inset rates from bipedicled cases. Comparisons were stratified by BMI: < 23 and 23–25.

Results

A total of 177 patients were included. The estimated abdominal and LAP flap volumes were 695.0 and 486.6 cm3, respectively, both positively correlated with BMI. The LAP-to-abdominal flap volume ratio increased as BMI decreased. LAP flap volume exceeded 1.0 relative to 50% of abdominal volume in over 90% of cases, especially in the BMI < 23 group. In bipedicled DIEP flap cases, the average abdominal inset ratio was 0.84; accordingly, the adjusted LAP-to-abdominal flap volume ratio was 0.87 overall and 0.92 in the BMI < 23 group.

Conclusions

The LAP flap volume was found to be comparable to that of the abdominal flap in a meaningful proportion of lean patients. These findings suggest it may serve as a reasonable alternative in cases requiring bilateral or bipedicled abdominal flap reconstruction.

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.