INTERNAL MAMMARY PERFORATOR VESSELS AS RECIPIENT SITE FOR MICROSURGICAL BREAST RECONSTRUCTION: A COMPARATIVE HISTOMORPHOMETRIC ANALYSIS AND INCIDENCE OF DEGENERATIVE VASCULAR CHANGES

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_MUNHOZ_INTERNAL_MAMMARY_PERFORATOR_VESSELS_AS_RECIPIENT_SITE_FOR_2014.PDF (469.79 KB)
Citações na Scopus
6
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2014
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
WILEY-BLACKWELL
Autores
MUNHOZ, Alexandre Mendonca
SAITO, Fabio L.
MENDES, Marcio
Citação
MICROSURGERY, v.34, n.3, p.217-223, 2014
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
BackgroundIn microsurgical breast reconstruction, an adequate selection of recipient vessels is crucial for a successful outcome. Although the internal mammary (IM) vessels offer an attractive option, the internal mammary perforator (IMP) vessels are becoming a reliable alternative. The purpose of this study is to investigate the external diameters, lumen area, and atherosclerotic lesions changes of the IMP, IM, and deep inferior epigastric (DIE) vessels through quantitative and qualitative histomorphometric analysis. MethodsNinety-six vessels of bilateral IM, IMP, and DIE vessels from 16 fresh female cadavers were evaluated. Mean age was 54.065.7 years. External diameters, lumen area, and degenerative changes of the tunica intimae and media were analyzed by qualitative histomorphometric analysis. ResultsSeventy-one vessels (20 IM, 31 IMP, and 20 DIE vessels) were included in the final histological analysis. A statistically lower external diameters and lumen area were presented by the IMP. The DIE vessels showed a lower incidence (10%) of moderate and severe intimal layer degenerative changes (P=0.0589). The IMP and DIE vessels showed a lower incidence (9.4 and 25%, respectively) of major media layer degenerative changes (P=0.0001). No major arterial degenerative lesions were observed in the IMP arteries. ConclusionAlthough the IMP external diameters and lumen area were lower than the IM, the results of this study indicated that the tunica media layer in the IMP is less damaged than the other recipient vessels. The results of the comparative histological study permitted to describe additional advantages and disadvantages of using IMP as a recipient vessel for free flap breast reconstruction. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery 34:217-223, 2014.
Palavras-chave
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/7321
Referências
  1. Alberdas JL, 2003, J ORAL MAXIL SURG, V61, P191, DOI 10.1053/joms.2003.50034
  2. ARNEZ ZM, 1995, BRIT J PLAST SURG, V48, P540, DOI 10.1016/0007-1226(95)90041-1
  3. Blondeel P, 2002, ANN PLAS SURG, V48, P214, DOI 10.1097/00000637-200202000-00020
  4. Chen HC, 2006, MICROSURG, V26, P356, DOI 10.1002/micr.20252
  5. Chen WF, 2012, MICROSURG, V32, P314, DOI 10.1002/micr.21962
  6. Craig ES, 2013, MICROSURG, V33, P125, DOI 10.1002/micr.22020
  7. Darcy CM, 2011, J PLAST RECONSTR AES, V64, P58, DOI 10.1016/j.bjps.2010.03.003
  8. ELLIOTT LF, 1990, WORLD J SURG, V14, P763
  9. FELLER AM, 1990, ANN PLAS SURG, V25, P425, DOI 10.1097/00000637-199012000-00001
  10. Fischer JP, 2013, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V131, P195, DOI 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318277856f
  11. Flores JI, 2012, MICROSURG, V32, P344, DOI 10.1002/micr.21953
  12. Follmar KE, 2011, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V127, P34, DOI 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181f95865
  13. GROTTING JC, 1989, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V83, P828, DOI 10.1097/00006534-198905000-00009
  14. Guzzetti T, 2001, ANN PLAS SURG, V46, P641, DOI 10.1097/00000637-200106000-00013
  15. Halim AS, 2013, ANN PLAST SURG, V21, P245
  16. Hamdi M, 2001, 5 INT COURS PERF FLA
  17. Hamdi M, 2004, BRIT J PLAST SURG, V57, P258, DOI 10.1016/j.bjps.2003.12.004
  18. Hamel RJ, 1979, CIRCULATION, V60, P1
  19. HAMMOND EC, 1969, ARCH ENVIRON HEALTH, V19, P167
  20. Handerson RR, 1973, AM HEART J, V86, P165
  21. HARKER LA, 1978, CLIN RES, V26, pA554
  22. Haywood RM, 2003, BRIT J PLAST SURG, V56, P689, DOI 10.1016/S0007-1226(03)00206-6
  23. HEFEL L, 1995, BRIT J PLAST SURG, V48, P527, DOI 10.1016/0007-1226(95)90039-X
  24. Henahan J, 1981, JAMA, V246, P2309, DOI 10.1001/jama.246.20.2309
  25. Khouri RK, 1998, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V102, P711, DOI 10.1097/00006534-199809030-00015
  26. Larsen A, 1969, SCAND J GASTROENTERO, V4, P387
  27. Lee MK, 2012, ARCH FACIAL PLAST S, V31, P1
  28. Lie JT, 1986, PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, P45
  29. Magarakis M, 2013, MICROSURG, V33, P421, DOI 10.1002/micr.22124
  30. McCullough PA, 2008, CLIN J AM SOC NEPHRO, V3, P1585, DOI 10.2215/CJN.01930408
  31. Miyamoto S, 2008, MICROSURG, V28, P505, DOI 10.1002/micr.20522
  32. Munhoz AM, 2004, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V114, P62, DOI 10.1097/01.PRS.0000129074.88594.D7
  33. Munhoz AM, 2003, J RECONSTR MICROSURG, V19, P413
  34. Nahabedian MY, 2004, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V114, P74, DOI 10.1097/01.PRS.0000127798.69644.65
  35. Nahabedian MY, 2002, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V110, P466, DOI 10.1097/00006534-200208000-00015
  36. NINKOVIC M, 1995, BRIT J PLAST SURG, V48, P533, DOI 10.1016/0007-1226(95)90040-3
  37. Park MC, 2003, ANN PLAST SURG, V50, P133
  38. Rosson GD, 2005, J RECONSTR MICROSURG, V21, P239, DOI 10.1055/s-2005-871750
  39. Saint-Cyr M, 2007, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V120, P1769, DOI 10.1097/01.prs.0000287132.35433.d6
  40. SALONEN JT, 1981, EUR HEART J, V2, P365
  41. SALONEN JT, 1994, J INTERN MED, V236, P561
  42. Serletti JM, 2000, SEMIN SURG ONCOL, V19, P264, DOI 10.1002/1098-2388(200010/11)19:3<264::AID-SSU8>3.0.CO;2-D
  43. Shoen FJ, 1994, ROBBINS PATHOLOGIC B, P467
  44. SUMA H, 1990, ANN THORAC SURG, V50, P413
  45. VANGELDER PA, 1981, SURGERY, V90, P860
  46. Zarins CK, 1989, VASCULAR SURG, P178

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MCG
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICESP
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/04