[Comparison of Two Umbilicoplasty Techniques in 72 Patients after Breast Reconstruction with a Free DIEP Flap]

INTRODUCTION:The appearance of the umbilicus after DIEP flap surgery or abdominoplasty plays an important role in aesthetic perception (1). Although the umbilicus has no function, there is no doubt about the importance of its shape for the self-esteem of patients, especially after breast cancer (2). In the present study, we compared two of the preferred techniques described in the literature on 72 patients in terms of aesthetic outcome, complications and sensitivity: the caudal flap (domed shape) and the oval shape of the umbilicus. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Seventy-two patients who underwent a DIEP flap for breast reconstruction between January 2016 and July 2018 were retrospectively included in this study. Two techniques for umbilical reconstruction were compared: the transverse oval shape of the umbilicus and umbilicoplasty using a caudal flap, which results in a dome shape of the umbilicus. To compare the aesthetic results, an evaluation by the patients and an assessment by three independent plastic surgeons were carried out at least 6 months postoperatively. Patients and surgeons were asked to rate the general appearance of the umbilicus, including scarring and shape, on a scale from 1 to 6 (1=very good, 2=good, 3=fair, 4=sufficient, 5=poor, 6=insufficient). Furthermore, the occurrence of wound healing disorders was examined, and patients were asked about the sensitivity of the umbilicus. RESULTS:Both techniques showed similar degrees of aesthetic satisfaction (p=0,49) as part of the patients' self-assessment. The plastic surgeons gave the caudal flap technique a significantly better rating than the umbilicus with a transverse oval shape (p=0,042). More wound healing disorders occurred in the caudal lobule (11,1%) compared with the transverse oval umbilicus. However, this was not significant (p=0,16). A surgical revision was not necessary. The caudal flap umbilicus showed a tendency to improved sensitivity (60 vs. 45%), but this was not significant (p=0,19). CONCLUSION:Patient satisfaction showed similar results for the two methods of umbilicoplasty. On average, both techniques were given a good rating for their results. However, surgeons rated the caudal flap umbilicoplasty as more aesthetically pleasing.