TY - JOUR
T1 - Robotic-Assisted DIEP Flap Harvest for Autologous Breast Reconstruction
T2 - A Comparative Feasibility Study on a Cadaveric Model
AU - Manrique, Oscar J.
AU - Bustos, Samyd S.
AU - Mohan, Anita T.
AU - Nguyen, Minh Doan
AU - Martinez-Jorge, Jorys
AU - Forte, Antonio J.
AU - Terzic, Andre
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was supported by the Center for Regenerative Medicine, directed by A.T., who provided insight, expertise, and economic support that greatly assisted the research.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Georg Thieme Verlag. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/6/1
Y1 - 2020/6/1
N2 - Background The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is the most common perforator flap for microsurgical breast reconstruction. Contrary to the conventional open approach, robotic-assisted DIEP flap harvest intends to preserve ARS integrity, thereby reducing the morbidity. We assessed the feasibility and compared performance outcomes of a robotic, cadaveric training model for DIEP flap harvest using two approaches: transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP). Methods A robotics system (da Vinci Xi) was applied in conjunction with a cadaveric training model. Ports were placed in the abdominal wall to triangulate each DIEP flap. Surgical time and technical characteristics were recorded. Values were analyzed and compared. Results Eight female cadavers (16 hemi-DIEP flaps) were dissected: 50% TAPP and 50% TEP approaches. Mean harvest time was 56 minutes (range: 48-74 minutes) and 65 minutes (range: 60-83 minutes) for TAPP versus TEP groups, respectively (p < 0.05). Mean pedicle dissection time was 36 minutes (range: 25-40 minutes) and 39 minutes (range: 30-42 minutes) for TAPP versus TEP groups, respectively (p > 0.05). Intra-abdominal contents were manipulated twice on average in the TAPP group versus 0 times in the TEP group (p < 0.05). One TAPP case had an injury to the bowel, and one TEP case was converted to conventional open due to pneumoperitoneum. Conclusion Robotic-assisted DIEP flap harvest represents a technological enhancement for advanced regenerative plastic surgery. Our model demonstrated both TAPP and TEP are feasible, with TEP less invasive, preserving the posterior rectus sheath, and decreasing complication risks. However, there is a steeper and longer learning curve for TEP.
AB - Background The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is the most common perforator flap for microsurgical breast reconstruction. Contrary to the conventional open approach, robotic-assisted DIEP flap harvest intends to preserve ARS integrity, thereby reducing the morbidity. We assessed the feasibility and compared performance outcomes of a robotic, cadaveric training model for DIEP flap harvest using two approaches: transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP). Methods A robotics system (da Vinci Xi) was applied in conjunction with a cadaveric training model. Ports were placed in the abdominal wall to triangulate each DIEP flap. Surgical time and technical characteristics were recorded. Values were analyzed and compared. Results Eight female cadavers (16 hemi-DIEP flaps) were dissected: 50% TAPP and 50% TEP approaches. Mean harvest time was 56 minutes (range: 48-74 minutes) and 65 minutes (range: 60-83 minutes) for TAPP versus TEP groups, respectively (p < 0.05). Mean pedicle dissection time was 36 minutes (range: 25-40 minutes) and 39 minutes (range: 30-42 minutes) for TAPP versus TEP groups, respectively (p > 0.05). Intra-abdominal contents were manipulated twice on average in the TAPP group versus 0 times in the TEP group (p < 0.05). One TAPP case had an injury to the bowel, and one TEP case was converted to conventional open due to pneumoperitoneum. Conclusion Robotic-assisted DIEP flap harvest represents a technological enhancement for advanced regenerative plastic surgery. Our model demonstrated both TAPP and TEP are feasible, with TEP less invasive, preserving the posterior rectus sheath, and decreasing complication risks. However, there is a steeper and longer learning curve for TEP.
KW - breast reconstruction
KW - deep inferior epigastric perforator flap
KW - plastic surgery
KW - robotic surgical procedures
KW - robotics
KW - surgical flaps
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85084919319&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85084919319&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1055/s-0040-1701666
DO - 10.1055/s-0040-1701666
M3 - Article
C2 - 32106313
AN - SCOPUS:85084919319
SN - 0743-684X
VL - 36
SP - 362
EP - 368
JO - Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery
JF - Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery
IS - 5
ER -