The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A 10-Year Retrospective Review of 758 DIEP Flaps for Breast Reconstruction
Abstract
This study examined 758 deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps for breast reconstruction, with respect to risk factors and associated complications. Risk factors that demonstrated significant association with any breast or abdominal complication included smoking (p = 0.0000), postreconstruction radiotherapy (p = 0.0000), and hypertension (p = 0.0370). Ninety-eight flaps (12.9 percent) developed fat necrosis. Associated risk factors were smoking (p = 0.0226) and postreconstruction radiotherapy (p = 0.0000). Interestingly, as the number of perforators increased, so did the incidence of fat necrosis. There were only 19 cases (2.5 percent) of partial flap loss and four cases (0.5 percent) of total flap loss. Patients with 45 flaps (5.9 percent) were returned to the operating room before the second-stage procedure. Patients with 29 flaps (3.8 percent) were returned to the operating room because of venous congestion. Venous congestion and any complication were observed to be statistically unrelated to the number of venous anastomoses. Overall, postoperative abdominal hernia or bulge occurred after only five reconstructions (0.7 percent). Complication rates in this large series were comparable to those in retrospective reviews of pedicle and free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps. Previous studies of the free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap described breast complication rates ranging from 8 to 13 percent and abdominal complication rates ranging from 0 to 82 percent. It was noted that, with experience in microsurgical techniques and perforator selection, the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap offers distinct advantages to patients, in terms of decreased donor-site morbidity and shorter recovery periods. Mastery of this flap provides reconstructive surgeons with more extensive options for the treatment of postmastectomy patients.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Sørensen, L. T. (2012) · Archives of Surgery · doi:10.1001/archsurg.2012.5 · Cited by 645
DIEP and Pedicled TRAM Flaps: A Comparison of Outcomes
Garvey, P. B., Buchel, E. W., Pockaj, B. A., Casey, W. J., Gray, R. J., Hern??ndez, J. L., & Samson, T. D. (2006) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000210679.77449.7d · Cited by 255
Metadata
- Authors
- Gill, P. S., Hunt, J. P., Guerra, A. B., Dellacroce, F. J., Sullivan, S. K., Boraski, J., Metzinger, S. E., Dupin, C. L., & Allen, R. J.
- Venue
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
- Published
- 2004-04
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1153-1160
- ISSN
- 0032-1052 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2076880461
- Cited by
- 605
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.23
- 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: A 10-Year Retrospective Review of 758 DIEP Flaps for Breast Reconstruction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.prs.0000110328.47206.50
- The paper
- Gill, P. S., Hunt, J. P., Guerra, A. B., Dellacroce, F. J., Sullivan, S. K., Boraski, J., Metzinger, S. E., Dupin, C. L., & Allen, R. J. (2004). A 10-Year Retrospective Review of 758 DIEP Flaps for Breast Reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000110328.47206.50
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.