Predictors, Classification, and Management of Umbilical Complications in DiEP Flap Breast Reconstruction
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, ISSN: 0032-1052, Vol: 140, Issue: 1, Page: 11-18
2017
- 27Citations
- 29Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations27
- Citation Indexes27
- 27
- CrossRef20
- Captures29
- Readers29
- 29
Article Description
Background: In recent years, the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DiEP) flap has become the workhorse flap for autologous breast reconstruction. Despite increased reports on DiEP flaps, umbilical complications have not been previously studied. The aesthetics of the umbilicus dictates the beauty of the abdomen, and it is critical for plastic surgeons to minimize the scarring of the umbilicus. In this study, we retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent DiEP flaps to determine the predictors of umbilical complications, and created a classification system of these wounds. Methods: Retrospective review of 323 patients who underwent DiEP flap surgery from 2009 to 2016 was performed. Umbilical stalk heights, widths of fascial diastasis, and abdominal wall thicknesses were measured from computed tomographic scans. Data regarding demographic and patient characteristics were collected. Results: Of the 323 patients, there were 58 patients that had umbilical complications (18 percent). These patients had statistically higher body mass indexes, heavier flaps, and thicker abdominal walls (p < 0.05). Also, they had statistically higher umbilical stalk heights (29.3 mm versus 18.7 mm), and analysis showed that the likelihood ratio of having umbilical complications was 2.05 at 20.1 mm, 3.05 at 25.4 mm, and 6.43 at 30 mm. Logistic regression analysis revealed that umbilical stalk height, fascial diastasis, age, procedure time, and flap weight were significant predictors (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Umbilical complications in patients undergoing DiEP flap surgery for breast reconstruction have not been previously studied. Our study shows that the umbilical stalk height plays a significant role, and umbilical wounds can be classified into five types: No wound, minor wound, wound dehiscence, partial necrosis, and total necrosis.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85021399384&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000003450; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28654582; http://Insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00006534-201707000-00002; https://journals.lww.com/00006534-201707000-00002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000003450; https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00006534-201707000-00002
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know