Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 25, 2025
In situ Transverse Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Flap: A Rat Model of Myocutaneous Ischemia Reperfusion Injury
Published on: June 8, 2013
Alternatives to the Gold Standard: A Systematic Review of Profunda Artery Perforator and Lumbar Artery Perforator
Kathryn Minkhorst, Valera Castanov1, Erica Ai Li2
1Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Introduction:
Breast reconstruction with the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is the current gold-standard autologous option. The profunda artery perforator (PAP) and lumbar artery perforator (LAP) flaps have more recently been described as alternatives for patients who are not candidates for a DIEP flap. The aim of this study was to review the survival and complication rates of PAP and LAP flaps, using the DIEP flap as a benchmark.
Methods:
A literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. Papers were screened by title and abstract, and full texts reviewed by three independent blinded reviewers. Quality was assessed using MINORS criteria.
Results:
Sixty-three studies were included, for a total of 745 PAP, 62 stacked PAP, 187 LAP, and 23,748 DIEP flap breast reconstructions. The PAP (98.3%) had comparable success rate to DIEP (98.4%), and the stacked PAP (88.7%) and LAP (92.5%) success rate was significantly lower (P < 0.0001). The PAP and LAP groups both had a low incidence of fat necrosis. However, the revision rate for the LAP group was 16.1% whereas the PAP group was 3.3%. Donor site wound dehiscence rate was 2.9 in the LAP group and 9.1% in the PAP group.
Conclusions:
Profunda artery perforator and DIEP flaps demonstrate very high rates of overall survival. The LAP flap has a lower survival rate. This review highlights the survival and complication rates of these alternative flaps, which may help clinicians in guiding autologous reconstruction technique when a DIEP flap is unavailable.
