Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This approach shows effective soft-tissue coverage in patients with extensive thoracoabdominal defects, suggesting a reliable alternative to conventional methods.
Background: Extensive thoracoabdominal defects after oncologic resection pose a major reconstructive challenge, particularly when durable soft-tissue coverage must be achieved over prosthetic chest wall reconstruction. Conventional pedicled flaps and free microvascular options may be constrained by donor-site morbidity, prolonged operative times, or anatomic unsuitability. Methods: We describe the reconstruction of a large thoracoabdominal defect using a Freestyle Multiperforator Island Flap (FMIF) based on deep inferior epigastric artery perforators, after wide excision of recurrent breast carcinoma and partial chest wall resection. The flap was intentionally designed with a reduced pedicular area, enabling direct advancement based on intraoperatively identified perforators to maximize mobility while preserving vascular reliability. Free autologous reconstruction with a deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap was not feasible due to insufficient abdominal adipose panniculus. Results: The FMIF provided immediate, stable, and well-vascularized coverage of the thoracic defect, including exposed prosthetic mesh and osteosynthesis materials, with complete flap survival and no perioperative complications. At 12-month follow-up, the reconstruction demonstrated durable coverage, satisfactory thoracic contour, and preserved function. Conclusions: A Freestyle Multiperforator Island Flap designed for direct advancement with a reduced pedicular area represents a reliable and efficient reconstructive solution for extensive thoracoabdominal defects, expanding the applicability of perforator-based local flaps and offering a valuable alternative when free-flap reconstruction is not feasible or when operative efficiency and resource optimization are essential.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vásquez et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: