Close
New

Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.

 

Unipedicled TRAM Breast Reconstruction

  • Author: Michael R Zenn, MD, MBA, FACS; Chief Editor: James Neal Long, MD, FACS  more...
 
Updated: Apr 12, 2016
 

Background

Breast reconstruction entered the modern era with the introduction of the transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap in 1982 by Hartrampf, Scheflan, and Black. This ingenious procedure reliably transfers autogenous tissue from the abdomen for breast reconstruction and has the added benefit of abdominal rejuvenation. See the image below.

Blood supply to the unipedicled transverse rectus Blood supply to the unipedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap. Note the superior epigastric supply and the shaded area of the TRAM flap to be discarded.

This procedure now constitutes 25-50% of breast reconstructions performed in the United States, and the TRAM flap has proven the autogenous tissue of choice for breast reconstruction.

The main advantage of the procedure lies in the consistency of the reconstructed breast; it is similar to the natural breast in softness and in the way the tissue drapes on the chest. Because the tissue is part of the patient's body, it does not incite foreign body reaction or capsular contractures, which have plagued implant reconstructions. Furthermore, since scars fade and tissues soften, the reconstruction only improves over time, which is not true of implant reconstructions. When performed properly in the properly selected patient, the TRAM flap procedure produces a breast reconstruction superior to any other technique.

Next

Indications

Transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap reconstruction may be considered in any patient who is undergoing mastectomy as either an immediate procedure (at the time of mastectomy) or as a delayed procedure (sometime after mastectomy). If chest wall radiation has been or will be part of the patient's therapy, reconstruction is delayed.[1] The patient must be psychologically motivated and have adequate tissues in the abdominal area to be considered for a TRAM flap. Although implant reconstruction and tissue reconstruction may be considered for any patient, some relative indications favor the TRAM flap procedure.

  • Radical mastectomy defect with large tissue requirement
  • History of radiation to the chest wall
  • Large opposite breast (difficult to match with an implant)
  • Small opposite breast (difficult to match with an implant)
  • Previous failure of implant reconstruction
  • Excess lower abdominal tissue and patient desires abdominoplasty
Previous
Next

Relevant Anatomy

The flap skin and fat of a single pedicle transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap reconstruction survive on perforators through the rectus abdominis muscle. Although this muscle has a dual blood supply, the superior epigastric artery and the inferior epigastric artery, this operation relies only on the superior epigastric arterial system. Because of the distant nature of this blood supply, only tissues directly over or immediately adjacent to the muscle have adequate vascularity. If more tissues are needed, consider other procedures (midabdominal TRAM, delay procedure, double pedicle TRAM, super-charged TRAM, free TRAM flap, deep inferior epigastric perforator [DIEP] flap).

Previous
Next

Contraindications

The transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap operation is major surgery and should not be undertaken lightly by the patient or surgeon. Over fifteen years of experience with these procedures enables the author to identify certain characteristics that place patients at higher risk for complications.

Because of the magnitude of the procedure and the degree of stress on the lungs and heart, this operation may unmask baseline cardiopulmonary disease and result in a complicated course for the patient. In addition, anything that causes small vessel disease, such as the medical conditions listed above, diabetes, or cigarette smoking, may cause complications in the transferred tissue and in the abdominal donor site. Any of the above characteristics contraindicate a TRAM flap, thus the surgeon should seek another method of reconstruction.

Patients who wish to have more children should be advised to consider another method of reconstruction, although this is not an absolute contraindication. Many reports exist of patients who have undergone TRAM experiencing full-term natural childbirth; the concern mostly centers on the diminished compliance of the abdominal wall, especially when synthetic mesh was used. Patients who desire no or little muscle to be removed with the TRAM flap should consider a free TRAM flap, deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap, or superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) flap.[2]

Previous
 
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Michael R Zenn, MD, MBA, FACS Professor, Vice Chief, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Program Director of Plastic Surgery Residency, Director, Human Tissue Laboratory, Duke University Medical Center

Michael R Zenn, MD, MBA, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association, American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery, North Carolina Medical Society, Plastic Surgery Research Council, World Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery, American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons

Disclosure: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant or trustee for: Novadaq Corporation; QMP.

Specialty Editor Board

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

Chief Editor

James Neal Long, MD, FACS Founder of Magnolia Plastic Surgery; Former Associate Professor of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Children's Hospital and Kirklin Clinics, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine; Section Chief of Plastic, Reconstructive, Hand, and Microsurgery, Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center

James Neal Long, MD, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, Plastic Surgery Research Council, Sigma Xi, Southeastern Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, Southeastern Surgical Congress

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Additional Contributors

Pankaj Tiwari, MD Assistant Professor, Division of Plastic Surgery, Ohio State University College of Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

The authors and editors of Medscape Reference gratefully acknowledge the contributions of previous editor Saleh Shenaq, MD, to the development and writing of this article.

References
  1. Spear SL, Ducic I, Low M, Cuoco F. The effect of radiation on pedicled TRAM flap breast reconstruction: outcomes and implications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005 Jan. 115(1):84-95. [Medline].

  2. Ascherman JA, Seruya M, Bartsich SA. Abdominal wall morbidity following unilateral and bilateral breast reconstruction with pedicled TRAM flaps: an outcomes analysis of 117 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Jan. 121(1):1-8. [Medline].

  3. Jensen JA. TRAM flap delay: new data addressing old questions. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Jun. 123(6):1883-5. [Medline].

  4. Erdmann D, Sundin BM, Moquin KJ, et al. Delay in unipedicled TRAM flap reconstruction of the breast: a review of 76 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002 Sep 1. 110(3):762-7. [Medline].

  5. Hudson DA. The surgically delayed unipedicled TRAM flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 1996 Mar. 36(3):238-42; discussion 242-5. [Medline].

  6. O'Shaughnessy KD, Mustoe TA. The surgical TRAM flap delay: reliability of zone III using a simplified technique under local anesthesia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Dec. 122(6):1627-30. [Medline].

  7. Zenn MR, Garofalo JA. Unilateral nipple reconstruction with nipple sharing: time for a second look. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Jun. 123(6):1648-53. [Medline].

  8. Shaw WW, Orringer JS, Ko CY, et al. The spontaneous return of sensibility in breasts reconstructed with autologous tissues. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997 Feb. 99(2):394-9. [Medline].

  9. Schwitzer JA, Miller HC, Pusic AL, et al. Satisfaction following Unilateral Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison of Pedicled TRAM and Free Abdominal Flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015 Aug. 3 (8):e482. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  10. Momoh AO, Colakoglu S, Westvik TS, Curtis MS, Yueh JH, de Blacam C, et al. Analysis of Complications and Patient Satisfaction in Pedicled Transverse Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous and Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2011 Jun 8. [Medline].

  11. Chun YS, Sinha I, Turko A, Lipsitz S, Pribaz JJ. Outcomes and patient satisfaction following breast reconstruction with bilateral pedicled TRAM flaps in 105 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010 Jan. 125(1):1-9. [Medline].

  12. Nahabedian MY, Momen B, Galdino G, Manson PN. Breast Reconstruction with the free TRAM or DIEP flap: patient selection, choice of flap, and outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002 Aug. 110(2):466-75; discussion 476-7. [Medline].

  13. Slavin SA, Goldwyn RM. The midabdominal rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap: review of 236 flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1988 Feb. 81(2):189-99. [Medline].

  14. Zienowicz RJ, May JW Jr. Hernia prevention and aesthetic contouring of the abdomen following TRAM flap breast reconstruction by the use of polypropylene mesh. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995 Nov. 96(6):1346-50. [Medline].

  15. Rossetto LA, Abla LE, Vidal R, Garcia EB, Gonzalez RJ, Gebrim LH, et al. Factors associated with hernia and bulge formation at the donor site of the pedicled TRAM flap. Eur J Plast Surg. 2010 Aug. 33(4):203-208. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  16. Shubinets V, Fox JP, Sarik JR, Kovach SJ, Fischer JP. Surgically Treated Hernia following Abdominally Based Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Prevalence, Outcomes, and Expenditures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Mar. 137 (3):749-57. [Medline].

  17. Bostwick J. Abdominal flap reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery. 2nd ed. St. Louis, Mo: Quality Medical Publishing, Inc; 2000. 981-1146.

  18. Chang EI, Chang EI, Soto-Miranda MA, Zhang H, Nosrati N, Robb GL, et al. Comprehensive analysis of donor-site morbidity in abdominally based free flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Dec. 132(6):1383-91. [Medline].

  19. Hartrampf CR Jr. The transverse abdominal island flap for breast reconstruction. A 7-year experience. Clin Plast Surg. 1988 Oct. 15(4):703-16. [Medline].

  20. Lejour M, Dome M. Abdominal wall function after rectus abdominis transfer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1991 Jun. 87(6):1054-68. [Medline].

  21. Moon HK, Taylor GI. The vascular anatomy of rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flaps based on the deep superior epigastric system. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1988 Nov. 82(5):815-32. [Medline].

  22. Shestak KC. Technical tips for avoiding complications in TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Reoperative Plastic Surgery of the Breast. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams and Williams; 2006. 302-39.

  23. Tan BK, Joethy J, Ong YS, Ho GH, Pribaz JJ. Preferred Use of the Ipsilateral Pedicled TRAM Flap for Immediate Breast Reconstruction: An Illustrated Approach. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2011 Jul 2. [Medline].

  24. Tsoi B, Ziolkowski NI, Thoma A, Campbell K, O'Reilly D, Goeree R. Safety of Tissue Expander/Implant versus Autologous Abdominal Tissue Breast Reconstruction in Postmastectomy Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014 Feb. 133(2):234-49. [Medline].

  25. Zenn MR, May JW Jr. TRAM flap reconstruction: the single pedicle, whole muscle technique. Spear SL, ed. Surgery of the Breast: Principles and Art. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 2006. 732-40.

 
Previous
Next
 
Blood supply to the unipedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap. Note the superior epigastric supply and the shaded area of the TRAM flap to be discarded.
Patient 1: The small-breasted patient did not want contralateral augmentation, and it would be difficult to match her breasts with an implant alone.
Patient 1: Postoperative view after unipedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap reconstruction. This small breast with ptosis would be impossible to achieve with an implant.
Patient 2: A full C cup breast and an ample abdomen for an unipedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous reconstruction
Patient 2: Postoperatively after unipedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous and nipple reconstruction. Note the improvement in the patient's abdominal appearance, a benefit of this type of reconstruction. She has been encouraged to return for re-application of the removed portion of her tattoo.
Patient 3: The patient's right lateral scar during initial biopsy precludes a true skin-sparing approach. With ample abdominal tissue, she is an excellent candidate for unipedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous reconstruction.
Patient 3: Postoperative view after unipedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap reconstruction. Note the abdominal skin replacing the removed skin to maintain breast shape. The patient does not desire nipple reconstruction.
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.