Scholarlink

Background <p>Autologous dermis (autoderm) is gaining popularity as a cost-effective, well-vascularized alternative to acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and synthetic meshes in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). The inferior dermal flap (IDF), originally developed for ptotic breasts, has been modified to address thin mastectomy flaps and improve implant coverage. This systematic review synthesizes recent literature on contemporary IDF use and modifications.</p> Methods <p>We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines. Comprehensive searches were performed across Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, CDSR, and Clinicaltrials.gov from January 1, 2020, to July 22, 2025. Inclusion criteria encompassed case reports, case series, cohort studies, and RCTs focused on dermal autografts for IBBR. Studies focused solely on subpectoral implant coverage, nipple-areolar complex reconstruction, or autologous flap-based procedures were excluded. Quality assessment utilized MINORS criteria and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist.</p> Results <p>Of 15,678 articles screened, 28 studies met inclusion criteria. Techniques identified included classic IDF, hybrid IDF-ADM/mesh combinations, vertical mastectomy patterns, skin flap bridging, hammock variants, and adaptations for non-ptotic breasts. Major complication rates ranged from 0 to 21% across various modifications, with highest rates in radiated cohorts. Reported series suggest that IDF techniques can provide vascularized coverage and implant support comparable to synthetic alternatives, though direct comparative evidence remains limited. A practical framework is also proposed to guide incision design selection based on the dominant pattern of skin redundancy.</p> Conclusions <p>IDF techniques offer versatile, patient-specific reconstructive options addressing diverse clinical challenges while reducing dependence on synthetic materials. These autologous dermal flap variations are associated with favorable outcomes and potential cost-effectiveness, though prospective research is needed to standardize outcomes and confirm long-term benefits.</p> Level of Evidence <p>Not gradable.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Autologous dermal flaps for implant-based reconstruction: a systematic review of modern techniques and contemporary modifications

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月21日

查看全文
  • Adam Boukind,
  • Nicholas C, Speller,
  • Sophia Chryssofos,
  • Amy Liao,
  • Lauren H. Yaeger,
  • Katherine Glover-Collins,
  • Justin M. Sacks,
  • Saif Badran

摘要

Background

Autologous dermis (autoderm) is gaining popularity as a cost-effective, well-vascularized alternative to acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and synthetic meshes in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). The inferior dermal flap (IDF), originally developed for ptotic breasts, has been modified to address thin mastectomy flaps and improve implant coverage. This systematic review synthesizes recent literature on contemporary IDF use and modifications.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines. Comprehensive searches were performed across Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, CDSR, and Clinicaltrials.gov from January 1, 2020, to July 22, 2025. Inclusion criteria encompassed case reports, case series, cohort studies, and RCTs focused on dermal autografts for IBBR. Studies focused solely on subpectoral implant coverage, nipple-areolar complex reconstruction, or autologous flap-based procedures were excluded. Quality assessment utilized MINORS criteria and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist.

Results

Of 15,678 articles screened, 28 studies met inclusion criteria. Techniques identified included classic IDF, hybrid IDF-ADM/mesh combinations, vertical mastectomy patterns, skin flap bridging, hammock variants, and adaptations for non-ptotic breasts. Major complication rates ranged from 0 to 21% across various modifications, with highest rates in radiated cohorts. Reported series suggest that IDF techniques can provide vascularized coverage and implant support comparable to synthetic alternatives, though direct comparative evidence remains limited. A practical framework is also proposed to guide incision design selection based on the dominant pattern of skin redundancy.

Conclusions

IDF techniques offer versatile, patient-specific reconstructive options addressing diverse clinical challenges while reducing dependence on synthetic materials. These autologous dermal flap variations are associated with favorable outcomes and potential cost-effectiveness, though prospective research is needed to standardize outcomes and confirm long-term benefits.

Level of Evidence

Not gradable.