Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cohort study evaluates non-inferiority of non-contrast MRA in DIEP flap planning, suggesting a reliable alternative to CTA.
Background Contrast-enhanced computed tomography angiography (CTA) is considered the “gold standard” in deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) planning, despite its use of iodine-based contrast and ionizing radiation exposure. In contrast, magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) provides a radiation-free alternative, but conventional MRA requires the use of an expensive and potentially harmful gadolinium-based contrast agent. The development of contrast-free MRA protocols that preserve perforator mapping accuracy represents a promising area of investigation in DIEP flap planning. Objectives To evaluate whether an optimized non-contrast MRA protocol is non-inferior to contrast-enhanced CTA in planning for delayed DIEP flap breast reconstruction (BR). Methods This cohort study included 131 women (mean age 45.6 ± 7.1; BMI 28.5 ± 3.9 kg/m2), who underwent delayed unilateral DIEP flap BR. Group 1 (n=81) underwent a non-contrast MRA with tailored preprocedural preparation, positioning, and scanning. Group 2 (n=50) underwent standard contrast-enhanced CTA. Results MRA significantly reduced operative time (333.0 ± 30.4 vs. 348.9 ± 28.8 min; p = 0.003) and pedicle dissection time (35.7 ± 8.2 vs. 40.1 ± 5.9 min; p < 0.001). The mean fascial incision length was shorter in the MRA group (9.1±1.5 cm vs. 10.6±1.6 cm; p = 0.025). Diagnostic accuracy was 98.8% vs. 99.6% (p = 0.4145); sensitivity 98.3% vs. 100.0%, and PPV 97.5% vs. 98.7%, for MRA and CTA, respectively. The mean localization difference (ΔL) was 7.38±2.59 mm vs. 6.96±2.34 mm (p=0.238). Perfusion-related complication rates did not differ significantly between groups (p>0.05). No significant differences were observed in baseline perforator characteristics. Conclusions Optimized non-contrast MRA is a clinically reliable, non-inferior alternative to CTA in DIEP flap planning, with additional advantages of reduced operative and dissection times.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Melnikov et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: