Use of the Cephalic Vein in DIEP Breast Reconstruction Does Not Increase Risk of Lymphedema of the Ipsilateral Arm

• Published in: Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963) Vol. 151; no. 1; p. 195
• Main Authors: Svee, Andreas, Falk-Delgado, Alberto, Folkvaljon, Folke, Cederland, Christoffer, Wallenius, Imke, Audolfsson, Thorir, Drazan, Lubos, Mani, Maria
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.01.2023
• Subjects: Epigastric Arteries - surgery; Humans; Hyperemia - etiology; Iliac Vein - surgery; Lymphedema - complications; Lymphedema - surgery; Mammaplasty - adverse effects; Perforator Flap - blood supply; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology; Postoperative Complications - etiology; Postoperative Complications - surgery; Regional Blood Flow; Retrospective Studies
• DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000009769

Flap failure is a rare but devastating complication in deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstructions. Common causes of partial or complete flap failure are related to venous congestion. Although the cephalic vein is usually a safe and reliable recipient vein for additional venous outflow, there is a hypothesized risk of donor-arm lymphedema secondary to lymphatic vessel damage in the vicinity of the cephalic vein or related to scarring and reduced venous backflow of the arm. The aim was to assess whether the cephalic vein as an additional recipient vessel, by means of the superficial inferior epigastric vein in DIEP flap breast reconstruction, was associated with long-term volume changes of the arm and/or symptoms of lymphedema. Arm volume was assessed preoperatively in patients scheduled to undergo unilateral delayed DIEP flap breast reconstruction at Uppsala University Hospital, Sweden, between 2001 and 2007. Long-term postoperative assessments were performed in 2015 to 2016. Water displacement and circumferential measurement were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively by the same lymphedema therapists. Patients were divided into two groups: DIEP reconstruction with the cephalic vein or without. Fifty-four patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and completed the study, with a mean follow-up time of 136 months. There was no increased occurrence of lymphedema in the group undergoing DIEP flap reconstruction with the cephalic vein as extra venous drainage, based on an analysis of change from baseline in arm volume difference.This study shows that the cephalic vein can be used for secondary venous outflow in DIEP breast reconstruction without long-term risk of ipsilateral arm volume increase or symptoms of lymphedema. Risk, II.