Retrospective analysis highlights high quality of life and self-confidence in breast reconstruction patients, suggesting effective lymphedema management.
Background: The omental fat-augmented free flap (O-FAFF) has become a versatile option for breast reconstruction, particularly with the added use as a biologic implant and for concurrent management of upper extremity lymphedema. In this study, we review the clinical applications, outcomes, complications, and patient reported outcomes after the first 100 O-FAFF reconstructions. Methods: A retrospective chart review including all patients who received O-FAFF reconstruction from 2019-2024 was conducted. 3D volume reconstruction was performed on postoperative MRIs. A modified BREAST-Q was sent to all patients. Results: 71 patients received a total of 100 O-FAFF reconstructions. Average BMI at the time of surgery was 22.86±3.74, average age was 49.44±10.91, and average length of hospital stay was 3.25±0.87 days. 5 patients had stacked O-FAFF with myocutaneous flap, 5 patients had hybrid reconstruction with inflatable saline implants, and 4 patients received concurrent omental VLNT. 5 patients (7.14%) required return to the operating room or procedural intervention. Patients required 1.35±0.65 revision surgeries, mostly for volume augmentation with fat grafting (46.48%). Postoperative MRI confirmed fat retention of at least 100% of omental weight. Patients reported high rates of self-confidence, emotional health, and self-worth after O-FAFF reconstruction. Patients who had laparoscopic omental harvest reported more satisfaction with abdominal scarring than those with open harvest (p<0.01). 77.14% of respondents selected ratings of ≥8 out of 10 for overall quality of life. Conclusions: Long-term experience with the omentum has shown it to be a durable and versatile method of breast reconstruction with low complication rates and high patient satisfaction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Young et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: