Evaluation of the Intercostal Artery Perforator (ICAP) Flaps versus Lateral Thoracic Artery Perforator (LTAP) Flap in Partial Breast Reconstruction Following Breast Conservative Surgery.

Introduction: The introduction of pedicled chest wall perforator flaps (CWPF) in breast surgery, increased the options foroncoplastic volume replacement procedures, however, the literature is scarce on nonblind nonrandomized interventionalstudies comparing intercostal artery perforator (ICAP) flaps versus lateral thoracic artery perforator (LTAP) flaps inPartial breast reconstruction. This research was designed to assess the ICAP flaps versus the LTAP flaps in partialbreast reconstruction in small and medium-sized breast women, in terms of aesthetic outcomes, patient satisfaction, andperioperative complications.Patients and Methods: This study was a nonblind nonrandomized interventional study, conducted on 34 female caseswith early breast cancer, who underwent conservative breast surgery and partial reconstruction, either by the ICAP flapsor the LTAP flap.Results: In this study, 34 cases were allocated to 20 patients in the ICAP flaps group, and 14 cases in the LTAP flapsgroup. The mean total follow-up period was 33.10±11.96 versus 12.15±10.92, P less than 0.001*. The average age was40.60±8.62 versus 43.07±8.01, and the average BMI was 32.19±6.80 versus 33.74±4.60 for the ICAPs versus LTAPgroups, respectively. The most common complications encountered were marked seroma, experienced by 5 cases in thetwo groups without statistically significant difference. Overall, the aesthetic outcomes were good to excellent in over 90%of the cases in the two groups without statistically significant difference, P=0.608. Most of the cases were very satisfiedwith the aesthetic outcomes (n=19, 95.0%) versus (n=12, 85.7%) for the ICAP versus the LTAP flaps, respectively withoutstatistically significant differences, P=0.455.Conclusion: The ICAP and the LTAP flaps are both versatile, risk-free surgical techniques, associated with lowcomplications rate, very good to excellent aesthetic outcomes, and a high patient satisfaction rate.