Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 326

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fat Necrosis in Free Transverse Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous and Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flaps

Kroll, Stephen S.·2000·Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Abstract

A series of 310 breasts reconstructed by a single surgeon using free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps was reviewed to see if there were any differences in the incidence of fat necrosis and/or partial flap loss between the two techniques. During the study period, 279 breasts were reconstructed with free TRAM flaps and 31 breasts were reconstructed with DIEP flaps. In the breasts reconstructed with free TRAM flaps, the incidence of partial flap loss was 2.2 percent and the incidence of fat necrosis was 12.9 percent. The DIEP flaps were divided into two groups. For the first eight flaps, patients were selected using the same criteria normally used to choose patients for free TRAM flaps. In this unselected early group, the incidence of partial flap loss was 37.5 percent and the incidence of fat necrosis was 62.5 percent. Because of the high incidence of partial flap loss and fat necrosis in the first eight flaps, subsequent selection was modified to limit the use of DIEP flaps to patients who had at least one sufficiently large perforator in each flap (a palpable pulse and a vein at least 1 mm in diameter) and who did not require more than 70 percent of the flap to create a breast of adequate size. In this later (selected) group, fat necrosis (17.4 percent) and partial flap loss (8.7 percent) were reduced to a level only moderately higher than that found in the free TRAM flap group. From these data, it can be concluded that the incidence of partial flap loss and fat necrosis is higher in DIEP flaps than in free TRAM flaps, probably because the blood flow to the former flap is less robust. This difficulty can be circumvented to some extent, however, by careful patient selection. Factors that should be considered include tobacco use, size of the perforators (especially the vein), and (in unilateral reconstructions) the amount of flap tissue across the midline needed to create an adequately sized breast. If these factors are properly considered when planning the operation, fat necrosis and partial flap loss can be reduced to an acceptable level. For selected patients, the DIEP flap is an excellent technique that can obtain a successful, autologous tissue breast reconstruction with minimal donor-site morbidity. For patients who are not good candidates for reconstruction with this flap, the free TRAM flap remains a good alternative.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00006534-200009010-00008

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 326

Metadata

Authors
Kroll, S. S.
Venue
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Published
2000-09
Volume
106
Issue
3
Pages
576-583
ISSN
0032-1052 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2051518714
Cited by
326
References
2
FWCI
8.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fat Necrosis in Free Transverse Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous and Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flaps. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00006534-200009010-00008
The paper
Kroll, S. S. (2000). Fat Necrosis in Free Transverse Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous and Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flaps. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200009010-00008

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.