Back and shoulder function after delayed breast reconstruction with a latissimus dorsi flap: a disputed topic
Uchechukwu O. Amakiri,Minji Kim,Robert J. Allen Jr,Jonas A. Nelson
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/gs-24-251
2024-11-29
Gland Surgery
Abstract:Uchechukwu O. Amakiri, Minji Kim, Robert J. Allen Jr, Jonas A. Nelson Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA Comment on: Löfstrand J, Paganini A, Grimby-Ekman A, et al . Long-term patient-reported back and shoulder function after delayed breast reconstruction with a latissimus dorsi flap: case-control cohort study. Br J Surg 2024;111:znad296. Keywords: Latissimus dorsi flap (LD flap); deep inferior epigastric perforator flap (DIEP flap); breast reconstruction; BREAST-Q; WOOS Submitted Jun 21, 2024. Accepted for publication Nov 11, 2024. Published online Nov 26, 2024. doi: 10.21037/gs-24-251 The latissimus dorsi (LD) flap was first described in 1897 as a method of covering mastectomy defects. Following further refinement and advancement, this flap has been utilized for a variety of purposes, notably as an option in autologous breast reconstruction (ABR). The introduction of the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap, however, has lowered rates of breast reconstruction with LD flaps in those patients preferring ABR. Still, LD flap breast reconstruction remains an option for patients who have insufficient abdominal tissue volume, inadequate abdominal vasculature, or prior history of abdominal surgery (1). It is also a method to salvage failed breast reconstruction that has previously used other techniques, including the DIEP flap. Furthermore, patients undergoing LD flap breast reconstruction have been demonstrated to have positive patient-reported outcomes that are comparable to DIEP, free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM), and pedicled TRAM flaps when examined together (2). Although the LD flap should be considered a reliable and safe option for ABR, it is not without its disadvantages. In order to complete this reconstructive method, the LD muscle—which is primarily involved in the movement of the upper extremity and considered to be an accessory muscle of respiration—must be sacrificed. The sacrificing of this muscle raises concerns for donor site morbidity and led to the development of the thoracodorsal artery perforator (TDAP) flap. Harvesting of the pedicled TDAP flap for breast reconstruction reduces the morbidity drawback of the LD flap, sparing the latissimus muscle while also providing acceptable functional and aesthetic results (3). A 2008 study from Hamdi et al. demonstrates that the utilization of the pedicled TDAP flap does not affect LD muscle strength, suggesting that there is minimal surgical sequelae following this surgical alternative (4). Moreover, when using the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire as an outcome measure, patients who underwent the TDAP flap in the setting of implants were shown to have less donor site functional morbidity when compared to patients who underwent the LD flap with implants, scoring significantly lower on the questionnaire (5). Similar to the reasoning for the development of the TDAP flap, other surgical and non-surgical methodologies have evolved to address the donor site morbidity following LD flap breast reconstruction. Refinement of LD flap harvest emphasizing the utilization of a muscle-sparing technique was created to combat the morbidity associated with the original technique. A modification of the muscle-sparing technique, originally described in 2010, was also demonstrated to preserve muscle function and had utility in a population of active patients who underwent complete breast reconstruction (6). Although LD flap harvest sacrifices the LD muscle, Park et al. show that postoperative physical therapy could improve shoulder mobility and patient-reported DASH scores (7). Furthermore, research has explored the relationship between thoracodorsal innervation to the LD muscle following LD flap harvest and shoulder function. While multiple studies put forth the idea that thoracodorsal nerve preservation versus division does not impact breast reconstruction outcomes, this idea is still argued within more recent literature (8,9). Despite concerns of donor site morbidity, the LD flap remains a workhorse flap used for various reconstructions, laying the foundation for Löfstrand et al. 's research (10). Previous studies have examined the impact of LD flaps on patients' upper extremity function. In a 2019 randomized controlled trial examining shoulder-related morbidity in patients who undergo delayed breast reconstruction using LD flaps when compared to TDAP flaps, Rindom et al. demonstrated significant differences in postoperative patient-reported shoulder-related pain between the two cohorts. Using the Constant Shoulder Scale (CSS) to objectify shoulder function, patients in the LD cohort experienced worse shoulder-related pain and had greater hindrance to their ability to perform activities of daily living tha -Abstract Truncated-
surgery