PlasmaBlade versus Electrocautery for Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Harvesting in Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A Comparative Clinical Outcome Study
Angela Augustin, Ines Schoberleitner, Sophie-Marie Unterhumer, Johanna Krapf, Thomas Bauer, Dolores Wolfram

TL;DR
This study compares two surgical tools for breast reconstruction and finds that the PlasmaBlade reduces drainage and pain compared to electrocautery.
Contribution
The study identifies specific patient groups who benefit more from using the PlasmaBlade over electrocautery.
Findings
The PlasmaBlade group had significantly lower abdominal drainage volume compared to the electrocautery group.
Postoperative pain was significantly lower in the PlasmaBlade cohort.
The PlasmaBlade showed benefits in patients with higher BMI, non-smokers, and those without prior chemotherapy.
Abstract
(1) Background: DIEP-based breast reconstruction necessitates wide undermining at the abdominal donor site, creating large wound areas. Flap harvesting is usually conducted using electrosurgical dissection devices. This study sought to compare the clinical outcomes in patients after using the PEAK PlasmaBlade (PPB) versus monopolar electrocautery (MPE). (2) Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 128 patients with DIEP-based breast reconstruction. Patient characteristics and information on the postoperative course were collected and a comparative evaluation was conducted. (3) Results: The MPE group exhibited significantly (p* = 0.0324) higher abdominal drainage volume (351.11 ± 185.96 mL) compared to the PPB group (279.38 ± 183.38 mL). A subgroup analysis demonstrated that PPB significantly reduced postoperative wound fluid in patients with BMI > 30 kg/m2 (p* = 0.0284),…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques · Tracheal and airway disorders · Head and Neck Cancer Studies
