The use of perforator flaps has allowed for the transfer of large amounts of soft tissue with decreased morbidity. For breast reconstruction, the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap, the superior and inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps, and the transverse upper gracilis flap are all options. The authors present an alternative source using posterior thigh soft tissue based on profunda artery perforators, termed the profunda artery perforator flap. Preoperative imaging helps identify posterior thigh perforators from the profunda femoris artery. These are marked, and an elliptical skin paddle, approximately 27 × 7 cm, is designed 1 cm inferior to the gluteal crease. Dissection proceeds in a suprafascial plane until nearing the perforator, at which point subfascial dissection is performed. The flap has a long pedicle (approximately 7 to 13 cm), which allows more options when performing anastomosis at the recipient site. The long elliptical shape of the flap allows coning of the tissue to form a more natural breast shape. All profunda artery perforator flaps have been successful. The donor site is well tolerated and scars have been hidden within the gluteal crease. Long-term follow-up is needed to evaluate for possible fat necrosis of the transferred tissue. The authors present a new technique for breast reconstruction with a series of 27 flaps. This is an excellent option when the abdomen is not available because of the long pedicle, muscle preservation, ability to cone the tissue, and hidden scar. Therapeutic, V.

The tear trough and the lid/cheek junction become more visible with age. These landmarks are adjacent, forming in some patients a continuous indentation or groove below the infraorbital rim. Numerous, often conflicting procedures have been described to improve the appearance of the region. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the anatomy underlying the tear trough and the lid/cheek junction and to evaluate the procedures designed to correct them. Twelve fresh cadaver lower lid and midface dissections were performed (six heads). The orbital regions were dissected in layers, and medical photography was performed. In the subcutaneous plane, the tear trough and lid/cheek junction overlie the junction of the palpebral and orbital portions of the orbicularis oculi muscle and the cephalic border of the malar fat pad. In the submuscular plane, these landmarks differ. Along the tear trough, the orbicularis muscle is attached directly to the bone. Along the lid/cheek junction, the attachment is ligamentous by means of the orbicularis retaining ligament. The tear trough and lid/cheek junction are primarily explained by superficial (subcutaneous) anatomical features. Atrophy of skin and fat is the most likely explanation for age-related visibility of these landmarks. "Descent" of this region with age is unlikely (the structures are fixed to bone). Bulging orbital fat accentuates these landmarks. Interventions must extend significantly below the infraorbital rim. Fat or synthetic filler may be best placed in the intraorbicularis plane (tear trough) and in the suborbicularis plane (lid/cheek junction).

Background: This study aims to elucidate the important predicting factors for fat necrosis and abdominal morbidity in the patient undergoing deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap reconstruction. Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective review of 866 free-flap breast reconstructions performed at one institution from 2010 to 2016. Twenty-eight potential predictors were included in multivariable analyses to control for possible confounding interactions. Results: Four hundred nine total deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flaps were included in the statistical analysis. Of these, 14.4 percent had flap fat necrosis, 21.3 percent had an abdominal wound or complication, and 6 percent had an abdominal bulge or hernia. Analysis showed an increase in the odds of fat necrosis with increasing flap weight (OR, 1.002 per 1-g increase; p = 0.0002). A decrease in the odds of fat necrosis was seen with lateral row (OR, 0.29; p = 0.001) and both medial and lateral row perforator flaps (OR, 0.21; p = 0.001), if indocyanine green angiography was used (OR, 0.46; p = 0.04), and with increasing total flow rate of the flap (OR, 0.62 per 1-mm/second increase; p = 0.05). Increased odds of abdominal bulge or hernia were seen with lateral row or both medial and lateral row perforators (OR, 3.21; p = 0.05) versus medial row perforator-based flaps, and with patients who had an abdominal wound postoperatively (OR, 2.59; p = 0.05). Conclusions: The authors’ results suggest that using larger caliber perforators and perforators from the lateral row alone, or in addition to medial row perforators, can decrease fat necrosis more than simply harvesting more perforators alone. However, lateral and both medial and lateral row perforator flaps come at the cost of increasing abdominal bulge rates. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Background: Free and local flaps based on the profunda artery perforators were first used for reconstruction of pressure sores, burn contractures, and extremity wounds. Recently, a revised profunda artery perforator flap was introduced for breast reconstruction. However, despite increasing reports of the use of the flap, it remains a rarely used option. The authors present their early experience with the first 101 profunda artery perforator flaps used for breast reconstruction at their institution. Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective review of the first 101 profunda artery perforator flaps at their institution. Patient demographics, perioperative data, and postoperative complications were recorded and analyzed. Results: One hundred one consecutive profunda artery perforator flaps were used to reconstruct 96 breasts in 56 patients. In 42 breasts, the flap was used in conjunction with another flap—with a deep inferior epigastric perforator flap (n = 36), a superior gluteal artery perforator flap (n = 1), or as stacked profunda artery perforator flaps (n = 5). Mean flap weight was 425 g (range, 170 to 815 g), and mean patient body mass index was 26.8 kg/m² (range, 18.2 to 42.3 kg/m²). Complications included total flap loss (2 percent), donor-site cellulitis (5.9 percent), and donor-site wound dehiscence (10.9 percent). Conclusions: The profunda artery perforator flap is a safe and reliable option for breast reconstruction. Flap size is adequate for breast reconstruction in appropriately selected patients. Furthermore, it can be combined with other flaps when additional volume or skin requirements are present. Flap and donor-site complications are comparable to those of other free tissue breast reconstruction options. It is a clear second option to the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for autologous tissue reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.