Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

How to approach the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap revision for optimal aesthetics

Davis MJ., Spiegel AJ.

Narrative Review on Scar, published in Gland Surg (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Gland Surg (2026)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
41668927
PMCID
PMC12884087
DOI
10.21037/gs-2025-352

Abstract (original English)

Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction has become the gold standard for autologous breast reconstruction, offering favorable outcomes in terms of flap viability and breast aesthetics. However, optimizing both donor and recipient site cosmesis initially and during postoperative revisions remains a critical component of patient satisfaction. This review provides an overview of strategies to enhance aesthetic outcomes in DIEP flap reconstruction, emphasizing donor site contouring, revision timing, and approaches tailored to challenging patient populations. To guide a systematic and intuitive framework for designing the breast, we introduce updated terminology rooted in architectural design: Foundation, Form, and Façade. The initial DIEP flap sets the stage for all subsequent revision surgeries. Preoperatively, key considerations include detailed preoperative assessment and patient expectation management. Intraoperatively, DIEP flap design and inset must be performed with aesthetics in mind. At the donor site, strategic abdominal incision placement and utilization of cosmetic closure techniques are crucial to mimic abdominoplasty results, and methods to preserve or reconstruct the umbilicus for a natural appearance are discussed. Initial postoperative management focuses on modalities to enhance scar healing. Revisions are typically initiated 3-4 months posto

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research