The definition, classification and management of rectus diastasis (RD) are controversial in the literature and a variety of different surgical treatments have been described. This article reports on the European Hernia Society (EHS) Clinical Practice Guideline for RD.
The Guideline group consisted of eight surgeons. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument were used. A systematic literature search was done in November 2018 and updated in November 2019 and October 2020. Nine Key Questions (KQs) were formulated.
Literature reporting on the definition, classification, symptoms, outcomes and treatments was limited in quality, leading to weak recommendations for the majority of the KQs. The main recommendation is to define RD as a separation between rectus muscles wider than 2 cm. A new classification system is suggested based on the width of muscle separation, postpregnancy status and whether or not there is a concomitant hernia. Impaired body image and core instability appear to be the most relevant symptoms. Physiotherapy may be considered before surgical management. It is suggested to use linea alba plication in patients without concomitant hernia and a mesh-based repair of RD with concomitant midline hernias.
RD should be defined as a separation of rectus muscles wider than 2 cm and a new classification system is suggested.
The management of RD is controversial. These guidelines are intended to provide a consensus about the exact definition, the correct way of measurement and diagnosis, a classification system, the main symptoms, and a systematic review of non-surgical and surgical treatments to achieve the best results for patients with this pathology. The main recommendation is to define RD as a separation between rectus muscles wider than 2 cm. A new classification system is proposed. It is suggested to use linea alba plication in patients without concomitant hernia and a mesh-based repair of RD in those with concomitant midline hernias.

暂无摘要。

Pyoderma gangrenosum following free tissue transfer for breast reconstruction is rare. This unusual ulcerative condition is frequently misdiagnosed, leading to inappropriate debridement and escalation of the subsequent wound through pathergy. Once diagnosed, treatment with immunosuppressive agents, including corticosteroids, results in an initial rapid response, but prolonged treatment is required. There is a paucity of literature regarding how to approach future surgery.
This was a retrospective case review from a single center over a 17-year period. All patients diagnosed with postsurgical pyoderma gangrenosum after free tissue transfer from the abdomen for breast reconstruction were included.
Of 456 free tissue transfers from the abdomen for breast reconstruction, 8 women who underwent 13 free flaps were diagnosed with postsurgical pyoderma gangrenosum in 10 flaps. The surgeries performed included transverse rectus abdominis muscle (n = 5), deep inferior epigastric perforator (n = 4) and superficial inferior epigastric artery (n = 4) flaps. Mean age at diagnosis was 52.8 years, and 3 patients had preexisting autoimmune conditions: type 2 diabetes mellitus, dermatomyositis, and Graves disease. The mean time of presentation of wound symptoms was 3.9 days after surgery, and mean time diagnosis was made was 9.4 days.
Pyoderma gangrenosum after autologous breast reconstruction is a rare, but serious, complication that is worsened by misdiagnosis and inappropriate debridement. We present a case series of 8 patients and emphasize the importance of early recognition and treatment with immune suppression. We include a treatment algorithm to manage these patients, once the diagnosis is suspected. Future surgery can be considered with a fully informed patient and careful collaboration with dermatology colleagues.

The most common donor-site for autologous breast reconstruction is the abdomen. Over the past several decades technical advances have resulted in the development of flaps that have been associated with a progressive decrease in abdominal wall morbidity. However, controversy exists related to the differences between muscle-sparing (MS)-TRAM and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps. Hence, the question which approach should be considered standard of care remains unanswered. To address this question the current literature and published evidence was critically reviewed and discussed by an expert panel at the 39th Annual Meeting of the German-speaking Society for Micro surgery of the Peripheral Nerves and Vessels (DAM). Based on this discussion a consensus statement was developed that incorporates contemporary data regarding postoperative complication rate, donor site morbidity, as well as expert opinion regarding technical details in autologous breast reconstruction with free TRAM and DIEP flaps.
Die Brustrekonstruktion mit freiem Gewebetransfer vom Unterbauch als (muskelsparende) TRAM oder DIEP Lappenplastik stellt das Standardverfahren der autologen Brustrekonstruktion dar. Durch operative Fortschritte ist es gelungen die Hebedefektmorbidität durch muskelsparende bzw. perforatorbasierte Techniken zu minimieren. Hier stellt sich die Frage, in wie weit dies als ein notwendiger Standard angesehen werden kann oder ob auch Lappenplastiken mit Muskelanteilen (MS-TRAM) noch als zeitgemäß anzusehen sind. In einem Konsensusworkshop der 3 Jahrestagung der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Mikrochirurgie der peripheren Nerven und Gefäße (DAM) wurde die Datenlage kritisch geprüft und durch eine Expertengruppe ein Konsensus erarbeitet. Dieser beinhaltet neben den aktuellen Daten zu Lappensicherheit und Hebedefektmorbidität aus der Literatur auch ein aktuelles Meinungsbild der Expertengruppe bzgl. verschiedener technischer Details des operativen Vorgehens.

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons commissioned a multistakeholder Work Group to develop recommendations for autologous breast reconstruction with abdominal flaps. A systematic literature review was performed and a stringent appraisal process was used to rate the quality of relevant scientific research. The Work Group assigned to draft this guideline was unable to find evidence of superiority of one technique over the other (deep inferior epigastric perforator versus pedicled transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap) in autologous tissue reconstruction of the breast after mastectomy. Presently, based on the evidence reported here, the Work Group recommends that surgeons contemplating breast reconstruction on their next patient consider the following: the patient\'s preferences and risk factors, the setting in which the surgeon works (academic versus community practice), resources available, the evidence shown in this guideline, and, equally important, the surgeon\'s technical expertise. Although theoretical superiority of one technique may exist, this remains to be reported in the literature, and future methodologically robust studies are needed.