Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 605

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A 10-Year Retrospective Review of 758 DIEP Flaps for Breast Reconstruction

Gill, Paul S., Hunt, John P., Guerra, Aldo B., Dellacroce, Frank J., Sullivan, Scott K., Boraski, Jonathan, Metzinger, Stephen E., Dupin, Charles L., Allen, Robert J.·2004·Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.prs.0000110328.47206.50

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.

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

Cited by

See all 605

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.