Meta-analysis of the effects of venous super-drainage in deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flaps for breast reconstruction
Abstract
Introduction
Venous congestion is the most common vascular complication of the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flaps. Adding a second venous drainage by anastomosing a flap vein and a recipient vein (super-drainage) is considered the solution of choice. Evidence to support this procedure, had not yet been confirmed by an analysis of the literature. We aimed to provide this evidence.
Materials and methods
We searched the literature (MedLine, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar), for studies discussing venous congestion and venous super-drainage in DIEP flap for breast reconstruction. Thirteen of the 35 articles compared results between one or two venous anastomoses. Meta-analysis was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Pooled risk ratio (RRs) for congestion, fat necrosis, partial necrosis, and total necrosis with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a fixed-effect model with the Mantel–Haenszel method. The need to return to surgery (95% CI) was estimated with a random effect model using the DerSimonian and Liard method.
Results
We showed a statistically significant advantage of super-drainage to reduce the venous congestion of the flap (RR: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04–0.34, p-value <.001), partial flap necrosis (RR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.30–0.84, p-value .008), total flap necrosis (RR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.11–0.85, p-value .023), and the need to take the patient back to surgery for perfusion-related complications (RR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.21–0.99, p value .048).
Conclusions
Performing a second venous anastomosis between the SIEV and a recipient vein (venous superdrainage) reduces venous congestion and related complications in DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors do not have any conflict of interest to disclose.
