Abdominal Wall and Chest Wall Reconstruction

Althubaiti, Ghazi M.D.; Butler, Charles E. M.D.

Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery:
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000086
Watch Video

Learning Objectives: After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Define the goals of abdominal wall and chest wall reconstruction. 2. Discuss the general principles of and the different surgical techniques for abdominal wall and chest wall reconstruction. 3. List the major advantages and disadvantages of synthetic and bioprosthetic mesh in abdominal and chest wall reconstruction. 4. Define the indications for and major factors to consider in chest wall skeletal stability reconstruction. 5. List the flaps commonly used for chest wall and abdominal wall reconstruction.

Summary: Plastic surgeons commonly face reconstructive challenges in repairing the abdominal and chest walls. Reconstructive options in these two areas are rapidly expanding with the availability of new techniques and new products. The purpose of this article is to provide an updated summary of reconstruction of the abdominal and chest walls, focusing on commonly encountered problems.

In Brief

Related Video Content is available Online.

Author Information

Houston, Texas

From the Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.

Received for publication September 24, 2012; accepted November 1, 2012.

Disclosure: The authors have no financial interests related to the content of this article. There was no external funding for this article.

Related Video content is available for this article. The videos can be found under the “Related Videos” section of the full-text article, or, for Ovid users, using the URL citations published in the article.

Charles E. Butler, M.D., Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1488, Houston, Texas 77030, cbutler@mdanderson.org

Article Outline

Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, which briefly highlights some of the important points of abdominal wall and chest reconstruction, is available in the “Related Videos” section of the full-text articles on PRSJournal.com or, for Ovid users, at http://links.lww.com/PRS/A971.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Ventral hernia repair and postoncologic reconstructive problems are some of the most commonly encountered abdominal wall challenges faced by plastic surgeons and are the focus of this section of the article. Because of space limitations, other abdominal wall reconstructive problems, such as congenital defects, traumatic defects, and open abdomen, are not discussed.

Back to Top | Article Outline
General Principles

The goals of abdominal wall reconstruction are to provide stable soft-tissue coverage, restore fascial integrity, prevent hernia, protect abdominal viscera, and restore function if possible. To minimize wound-related complications, the patient’s general medical condition (e.g., nutritional, cardiac, pulmonary) should be optimized preoperatively if feasible.

Ideally, abdominal wall reconstruction should be approached with a multidisciplinary team. In ventral hernia repair, for example, the surgeons who performed the laparotomy that resulted in the hernia are often involved, along with the reconstructive surgeons who will perform the abdominal wall reconstruction.

The fascia and the soft-tissue envelope of the abdominal wall–including the skin–can be considered as two separate units. The “like-with-like” principle of reconstructive surgery should be followed in reconstructing these units if possible. Dead space should be eliminated as much as possible during reconstruction, and extensive undermining of the skin should be avoided. The surgeon should also choose a method of reconstruction that minimizes the chances of bowel adhesions, fistulization, and perforation.

The musculofascia can be repaired by primary closure with or without component separation, fascial grafts, fascial components of tissue flaps, and synthetic or bioprosthetic mesh materials. The surgeon should avoid undue tension on the fascial repair site and repair the fascia under physiologic tension to minimize the chance of early dehiscence and late hernia recurrence. Midline musculofascial defects may benefit from component separation, depending on the size and location of the defect. If the fascial defect is located laterally, which is often encountered following tumor resection, reconstruction of the fascia with synthetic or bioprosthetic mesh is often the best option.

Stable skin coverage can be provided with primary closure of the skin, local or regional flaps, skin grafts, tissue expansion, and/or free tissue transfer. Flap selection will depend on the location, extent, and size of the defect.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Preoperative Considerations

Physical examination should be performed to assess the patient’s general condition, the abdominal wall integrity, the extent and location of any abdominal wall abnormalities, and the presence of scars that could become an obstacle to raising reliable tissue flaps. Routine laboratory tests and a nutritional workup are advised. Preoperative computed tomography to examine the defect characteristics and abdominal wall anatomy and vascularity is helpful for surgical planning.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Operative Techniques
Hernia Repair

The most common abdominal wall defects faced by reconstructive surgeons are incisional hernias. The incidence of incisional hernia is approximately 11 percent following midline laparotomy.1 One in three incisional hernias will cause symptoms, and approximately 4 percent of patients undergoing laparotomy will undergo an additional operation to repair an incisional hernia (Reference 2 Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, II).1,2 Patients with hernias are at risk of developing bowel-related complications such as enterocutaneous fistulas, obstruction, incarceration, and strangulation. Functional problems in hernia patients include poor respiratory effort, loss of abdominal domain, and weak abdominal musculature. Cosmetic problems are also frequent complaints from patients with abdominal hernias.

Incisional hernias are notorious for their high recurrence rate after repair and for their high rate of surgical complications. One study found that the 5-year reoperation rate was 23.8 percent after the first hernia repair operation, 35.3 percent after the second, and 38.7 percent after the third (Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III).3 The infection rate following ventral hernia repair is 4 to 16 percent.4 The risk significantly increases if the patient had a previous infection (41 percent versus 12 percent in one study).5 Following infection, the risk of hernia recurrence was reported to be approximately 80 percent in one study.6 Bowel-related complications such as adhesions, obstruction, erosion, and fistulization are other known complications of hernia repair, especially with the use of synthetic mesh. One study found that the risk of enterotomy or unplanned bowel resection in patients with previous synthetic mesh hernia repair was higher (20 percent versus 5 percent) than in patients who did not have mesh repairs for their hernias.7 Factors that may complicate hernia repair include the presence of multiple scars that could compromise skin vascularity, the presence of enterocutaneous fistulas or exposed mesh, the presence of extensive bowel adhesions, obesity, and chronic hernia with loss of domain.

The Ventral Hernia Working Group developed a grading system for the risk of complications at the surgical site that categorizes patients into one of four groups.4 Table 1 summarizes the Ventral Hernia Working Group recommendations for whether to use mesh and what type to use in each group. The Ventral Hernia Working Group recommends the use of prosthetic material to reinforce the repair of all incisional ventral hernias regardless of whether the midline fascia can be reapproximated–unless there is a contraindication to use mesh, such as wound infection.4

Back to Top | Article Outline
Mesh or No Mesh?

Prospective randomized studies have demonstrated that the use of mesh reduces hernia recurrence by approximately one half compared with primary suture repair at 3 years (24 percent versus 43 percent)6 and 10 years (32 percent versus 63 percent) of follow-up.2 Defects 2 cm in diameter or less may be suitable for primary suture repair, although the Ventral Hernia Working Group suggests that these small hernias may still benefit from the use of mesh.4 One study reported that even for small ventral incisional hernias, the recurrence rate is 67 percent following suture repair versus 17 percent after mesh repair.2

Mesh is used to either reinforce or bridge fascial defects. When the fascial edges of the hernia can be brought together with or without component separation, an overlay (or underlay) of mesh can be used to reinforce the primary suture repair. Reinforcement is recommended for repair of all ventral incisional hernias.4

When all or part of the fascial defect cannot be closed primarily, mesh is used to bridge (i.e., span) the defect. In general, this technique is associated with a higher rate of complications and recurrence than reinforcement with mesh.4 Mesh bridging is generally used when component separation is not feasible or fails to coapt the fascial edges.4 Bridging may be the only option for very large fascial defects. Mesh placement choices are summarized in Table 2.

The two main types of mesh currently used are synthetic and bioprosthetic. Advantages and disadvantages of synthetic and bioprosthetic meshes are summarized in Table 3.6,8–28

Most surgeons are more familiar with synthetic meshes, which are durable and reliable but are generally contraindicated in contaminated and infected fields. Bioprosthetic materials are preferred over synthetic materials for use in contaminated fields and should be strongly considered when the defect has bacterial contamination. In a study of bioprosthetic mesh, complex hernia repair in contaminated fields was successfully achieved in 80 percent of patients, with no mesh explantation at 1 year (Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, IV).18

No large studies have compared the outcomes of synthetic versus bioprosthetic mesh in ventral hernia repair. One study found a significant decrease in the recurrence rate after primary repair of medium-size hernias were reinforced with an overlay of human acellular dermal matrix mesh (median follow-up, 15 months).29 Human acellular dermal matrix was one of the first available bioprosthetic meshes and was previously commonly used for ventral hernia repair; however, because of high rates of bulges and hernia recurrence, its use is now limited.25,30

Xenogeneic acellular dermal matrix (porcine and bovine) appears to be more durable and promising. In a recent study, porcine acellular dermis was found to be a useful durable adjunct to component separation in reconstructing the abdominal wall in 41 patients, with no mesh explantation or hernia recurrence during the relatively short follow-up period (194 to 1017 days).31

Back to Top | Article Outline
Component Separation

When it is difficult to coapt the abdominal fascia edges in the midline without undue tension, component separation should be considered. Component separation facilitates reapproximation of the musculofascia toward the midline to allow primary closure of central abdominal wall musculofascial defects, such as hernias or resection defects. In component separation, the external oblique aponeurosis is released just lateral to the linea semilunaris; this allows significant medial advancement of the rectus abdominis complex attached to the internal oblique and transversalis muscles without denervating or devascularizing the abdominal musculature. The original component separation technique also includes releasing the posterior rectus sheath. The amount of medial advancement per side with component separation has been reported as 5 cm in the epigastrium, 10 cm at the waistline, and 3 cm in the suprapubic area (Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, IV).32 Component separation provides dynamic innervated abdominal wall reconstruction without a distant donor-site deficit.32,33 It allows primary fascial closure even in contaminated fields in which the use of synthetic materials is not recommended.34 The component separation technique and its modifications have been shown to help reduce hernia recurrence in difficult and recurrent hernias.34–36 Previous violation of the rectus abdominis complex with a visceral stoma, scar, or resection is generally not a contraindication for the use of component separation (Level of Evidence: Risk, II).37

Modifications of component separation include endoscopic or laparoscopic techniques, periumbilical perforator–preservation techniques, and minimally invasive techniques30,38–42 such as minimally invasive component separation with inlay bioprosthetic mesh, which uses tunnel incisions for external oblique aponeurosis release (Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, IV).38 The main aims of these modified techniques are minimizing the subcutaneous dead space that can result from extensive tissue undermining and improving vascularity to the overlying skin by preserving the integrity of the rectus abdominis myocutaneous perforators. Some of the techniques used to perform component separation are illustrated in Figure 1.

The hernia recurrence rate following repair with component separation but no mesh was reported to be 22.8 percent in a study of 158 patients with a mean follow-up of 10 months.30 However, among 18 patients in whom component separation was reinforced with soft synthetic mesh, in the same article, there were no recurrences during the mean follow-up of 13 months. In a recent review, open component separation without mesh repair was associated with a higher hernia recurrence rate (27 percent at 27 months’ mean follow-up) than open component separation with mesh repair (16.7 percent at 33 months’ mean follow-up).43 Laparoscopic and open component separations are associated with similar hernia recurrence rates.43

In a recent study, Butler’s minimally invasive component separation with inlay bioprosthetic mesh (MICSIB)38 technique resulted in fewer wound-healing complications, including skin dehiscence, than did open component separation (14 percent versus 32 percent) when used for complex abdominal wall reconstructions.44 These findings are likely attributable to the preservation of paramedian skin vascularity and reduction in subcutaneous dead space with minimally invasive component separation with inlay bioprosthetic mesh. Furthermore, despite larger hernia defects in the minimally invasive component separation with inlay bioprosthetic mesh group, the latter study found a nonsignificantly lower incidence of hernia recurrence and bulge with minimally invasive component separation with inlay bioprosthetic mesh than with open component separation (Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III).44

Back to Top | Article Outline
Composite Defects
Back to Top | Article Outline
Timing of Reconstruction

Most composite defects (those including musculofascia and overlying fat and skin) are repaired in an immediate, single-stage fashion unless the patient is unstable or there is significant bacterial contamination in the tissue. In these cases, several serial débridements are performed and definitive reconstruction is delayed. Common methods used to gain time until the definitive reconstruction can be performed include wound dressing changes and negative-pressure wound therapy.45

Back to Top | Article Outline
Lower Abdomen Defects

For defects of the lower abdomen, soft-tissue coverage can be provided with thigh-based pedicled flaps if primary skin closure with local tissue is not possible. For midline fascial defects, component separation is less useful in the lower abdomen than in the central abdomen. Therefore, if the fascia cannot be closed primarily without undue tension, formal fascial reconstruction with mesh is advised. If there are no fascial edges to secure the mesh to, the surgeon may elect to secure the mesh to bone with polypropylene sutures through drill holes in the ribs, lumbosacral spine, and/or pelvis.46 Even if a soft-tissue flap is used for reconstruction, mesh repair is preferable to using the fascial component of the flap to patch the defect. Mesh repair may be more reliable than the fascia of a tissue flap, as it places less tension on the flap inset that might potentially compromise vascularity. Furthermore, the fascial component of soft-tissue flaps may be less reliable than implantable mesh, potentially resulting in failure or laxity of the repair.46

Back to Top | Article Outline
Upper Abdomen Defects

For lateral upper abdomen defects, if primary closure of the skin with local tissue is not possible, soft-tissue coverage can be provided with flaps based on the upper trunk (e.g., latissimus dorsi, serratus). For fascial reconstruction, the same principles outlined for lower abdominal defects are followed.

The central upper abdomen remains a difficult area to reconstruct with pedicled flaps in general, as only the less reliable, less perfused distal part of trunk-based or thigh-based pedicled flaps tends to reach the upper abdomen. Free flaps are often needed for central upper abdominal defects and may require vein grafts or anastomosis to intraperitoneal vessels. Central fascial defects can be addressed in the same way as ventral hernia repair. Component separation and/or mesh (without a flap) provide a means for repairing midline defects in some cases.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Flap Selection

For abdominal wall defects that cannot be closed primarily or with a local flap, various regional flaps have been used to provide stable soft-tissue coverage. Defects in the lower abdomen can be closed with flaps from the thigh. Flaps that are based on the lateral circumflex femoral system can provide skin, muscle, and fascia, as needed. Lateral abdominal defects can be repaired with pedicled flaps from the abdomen or upper trunk. Table 4 summarizes key considerations in pedicled flap choice for abdominal wall reconstruction.47–54

The main indication for free flaps in abdominal wall reconstruction is extremely large defects or those located in the central upper abdomen where pedicled flaps cannot reach. Free flaps used to repair these defects include tensor fasciae latae flaps, anterolateral thigh flaps, other combined thigh flaps, groin flaps, and latissimus dorsi flaps.49,55,56

A paucity of reliable recipient vessels for free flaps in the abdominal wall is often encountered in patients who have had multiple operations and/or radiation therapy. Vein grafts or arteriovenous loops are helpful in this situation.46,57 Possible donor vessels include the femoral vessels and their branches the internal mammary, superior epigastric, inferior epigastric, and gastroepiploic vessels.46,57,58 Using intraabdominal vessels as recipient vessels requires creating a tunnel for the free flap’s vascular pedicle through the abdominal wall and/or mesh (if mesh is used); this increases the chance of hernia, pedicle compression, and thrombosis. Recipient vessel options that do not generally require vein grafts are the gastroepiploic and internal mammary vessels.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Tissue Expansion

Tissue expansion of the abdominal wall can provide well-vascularized autologous skin, subcutaneous tissue, and/or abdominal fascia for the repair of large defects.,59–61 However, tissue expansion carries the risks of rupture, extrusion, infection, patient intolerance, and expander failure.

Back to Top | Article Outline


There are generally four indications for chest wall reconstruction: resection of a tumor (primary or recurrent), radiation injury, trauma, and infection (Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, IV).62 Sternal wound dehiscence following sternotomy is also a commonly seen problem in plastic surgery and is often discussed as a separate entity from the other reconstructive problems. This part of the article focuses on intrathoracic reconstruction in bronchopleural fistula and empyema and chest wall reconstruction following tumor resection. Other aspects of chest wall reconstruction are discussed elsewhere in the literature.

Back to Top | Article Outline
General Principles

General principles for the treatment of chronic empyema and bronchopleural fistula, which often occur together, include drainage of the fluid collection, débridement of devitalized tissue, obliteration of the dead space, establishment of negative intrathoracic pressure, and administration of proper antibiotics.63 The bronchopleural fistula should be resected, the bronchus should be closed, and the repair should be reinforced with a well-vascularized tissue flap to reduce the chance of recurrent fistula.64 The severity of the case and the general condition of the patient determine whether definitive reconstruction can be performed in a single stage or will require multiple stages.63,65

The two major components of chest wall reconstruction following composite resection are reconstruction of chest wall stability and provision of reliable, well-vascularized soft-tissue coverage. Additional objectives, as described by Thomas and Brouchet,66 are to avoid lung hernia and paradoxical chest wall motion, counteract the contraction of the affected side of the thorax expected after surgery, prevent impaction of the scapula into the defect in cases of posterior chest wall resection, protect the underlying mediastinal organs, and maintain an aesthetically acceptable chest shape. Restoring a form of skeletal stability is often needed following major resection to reduce the negative impact on respiratory function.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Preoperative Considerations

The patient’s general medical condition and nutritional status should be optimized before surgery. In addition, the patient’s pulmonary function should be evaluated preoperatively (e.g., with spirometry) because the vast majority of patients undergoing major chest wall procedures will have some degree of postoperative respiratory dysfunction.67 Failed extubation and prolonged ventilator dependence could follow major chest wall surgery in patients with poor preoperative respiratory function.

The plastic surgeon should communicate with the thoracic surgeon to develop a clear reconstructive plan. For intrathoracic reconstruction, the plastic surgeon should be familiar with bronchopleural fistula and empyema.

Although bronchopleural fistula is sometimes treated in multiple stages, defects that follow composite chest wall resection are approached differently, with the aim of achieving reconstruction in a single operation. Preoperative (and intraoperative) planning will benefit from an algorithmic approach to the anticipated defect, evaluating the defect in layers from inside out, starting with the pleura, then the skeleton, and then the soft tissues. Resection of any of these components will create a unique problem that needs a specific form of reconstruction. Prosthetic materials are frequently needed to restore chest wall skeletal stability following resection.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Operative Techniques
Bronchopleural Fistula and Empyema

Bronchopleural fistula and chronic empyema are two of the most common conditions necessitating reconstruction of the pleural space and often occur together. The incidence of postpneumonectomy stump fistula is 0 to 12 percent,68,69 although postpneumonectomy empyema has a reported incidence of 2.2 to 16 percent.70 The presence of untreated dead space and bronchopleural fistula following lobectomy or pneumonectomy will usually result in infection. The postoperative mortality rate of pneumonectomy increases to 25 percent if the course is complicated by empyema and to approximately 50 percent if bronchopleural fistula is present.71 Some of the classic techniques used to treat chronic empyema and/or bronchopleural fistula are summarized in Table 5.72–78

Soft-tissue flaps are often used to reinforce the repair after closure of a fistula and/or to fill the intrathoracic dead space after drainage of a fluid collection. Flaps used in bronchopleural fistula closure include intercostal muscle,79 pericardial fat,80 diaphragm,81 extrathoracic muscle,73 omental,82 and free flaps.83 Pedicled flaps commonly used to fill intrathoracic dead space are described in Table 664,84–87 and illustrated in Figure 2.

These flaps can be introduced into the thoracic cavity through the original wound63 or through a new, separate thoracotomy.64 For single-stage treatment of empyema without a bronchopleural fistula, the empyema is drained, and the dead space is irrigated, filled with a muscle flap, and closed.63,75 If the patient is too ill to undergo an extended single-stage procedure or if the infection is longstanding and resistant, treatment may begin with a drainage procedure, such as the Eloesser procedure (Table 5 and Fig. 3). When bronchopleural fistula is also present, it must be addressed as well.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Defects from Tumor Resection
Back to Top | Article Outline
Reconstruction of Chest Wall Stability

Autologous tissues such as rib grafts and fascial grafts have been falling out of favor for restoration of chest wall stability since synthetic mesh was introduced.62 Semirigid chest wall reconstruction can be achieved by suturing synthetic or bioprosthetic mesh under tension to span the skeletal defect that follows tumor resection. Some authors also suggest the use of more rigid fixation with polymethylmethacrylate/polypropylene mesh for such defects.88 Polymethylmethacrylate reconstruction is frequently advocated to repair large anterior and anterolateral chest wall contour defects, whereas large defects in flat surfaces on the anterior and posterior aspect of the chest may be repaired with prosthetic mesh.89,90

The ideal prosthetic material features, as described by le Roux and Shama, include rigidity that reduces paradoxical movement, inertness that allows tissue ingrowth, malleability, and radiolucency that does not obstruct radiographic evidence of tumor relapse.91 Synthetic mesh in general may increase complication rates when it is placed directly over viscera or when the operative site has been irradiated or contaminated with bacteria.22 Table 7 describes commonly used synthetic materials in chest wall reconstruction.62,66,92–94

Synthetic mesh is contraindicated in contaminated wounds unless prolonged dependence on a ventilator will result from not using it.62 In the latter situation, bioprosthetic mesh is an alternative.

Many bioprosthetic meshes are available; these include human and xenogeneic acellular dermal matrices. Bioprosthetic meshes have been shown in animal models to allow tissue ingrowth,95 become incorporated and revascularized,95 and be valuable for wounds with a high risk of infection or complications. The main limitations are their high cost, unproven long-term stability in the chest wall, and theoretic risk of stretching or laxity with ongoing remodeling. Bioprosthetic mesh may be a good option for defects that have bacterial contamination and/or an increased risk of skin dehiscence with mesh exposure; the material tolerates cutaneous exposure without the need for explantation.18 Once the synthetic or bioprosthetic material is placed and secured to the edges of the defect, well-vascularized soft-tissue coverage should be provided to minimize the chance of exposure and infection.

The use of prosthetic mesh sutured under tension to recreate semirigid chest wall stability following repair of large defects has been shown to reduce ventilator dependence and hospital stay.96 However, the absolute need for rigid or semirigid skeletal stability reconstruction of the chest wall following resection has been challenged, particularly for smaller defects. Arnold and Pairolero reported that pulmonary function is not ultimately compromised following major chest wall resection, such as removal of the entire sternum, if reconstruction is performed without mesh.62 Furthermore, the resulting pulmonary insufficiency following chest wall resection is often less significant than that following trauma.97 Factors to be considered in making a decision about skeletal stability reconstruction are summarized in Table 8.92,97–102

Back to Top | Article Outline
Soft-Tissue Coverage

For small, full-thickness defects of the chest wall, a thick soft-tissue flap can provide enough stability without the need for chest wall skeletal stability reconstruction. Otherwise, soft-tissue flaps are used in conjunction with synthetic or bioprosthetic materials to provide soft-tissue coverage and skeletal stability, respectively. Table 9 summarizes the pedicled soft-tissue flaps commonly used in chest wall defect coverage.

The pectoralis major muscle flap when based on its thoracoacromial pedicle can reliably reach the entire anterior chest wall except the lower sternum.103 The muscle remains innervated and functional and allows secondary sternotomy.62 For lower chest wall defects, the muscle can be more efficiently transferred as a “split-turnover” with the release of its humeral insertion and its thoracoacromial pedicle.

The omental flap can easily reach inside the thorax and even to the neck.104 The omental flap has been used prophylactically to cover vascular anastomoses considered to be at high risk for failure, to treat established chest infection, and to cover prosthetic chest wall replacements after extensive chest wall resection.105 The omental flap is also indicated for large and deep sternal wounds106 and has compared favorably to muscle flaps in treating poststernotomy mediastinitis.107,108 This flap carries the risk of intraabdominal morbidity and hernia when transposed through a subcutaneous tunnel.

The latissimus dorsi flap can easily reach the lateral, posterior, and anterior chest including the anterior mediastinum. When the latissimus dorsi flap is transferred as a musculocutaneous flap, a large skin paddle can be transposed to the anterior aspect of the chest with high reliability.62 However, if the skin paddle is more than 8 to 10 cm in width, the donor site may need to be skin grafted. The serratus muscle is often combined with the latissimus dorsi muscle to create a larger flap to fill dead space.

The rectus abdominis flap can be transferred as a muscle or musculocutaneous flap, with vertical or transverse skin orientation, with the latter providing a larger (but less reliable) cutaneous flap from the lower abdomen.109 For sternal reconstruction, this flap is usually used as a muscle flap. Even following internal mammary vessel ligation, the rectus abdominis muscle may still be perfused through the musculophrenic artery and through the lower intercostal arteries, on which the flap can be based.110

Pedicled fasciocutaneous flaps from the upper abdomen/lower chest can be based either medially on the deep epigastric system perforators or laterally on the intercostal perforators and used to cover lower chest and breast defects. Davis et al.111 reported their experience in 35 patients who underwent breast, chest, mediastinal, or upper extremity reconstruction using medially based thoracoabdominal flaps up to 11 × 35 cm, with only three cases of partial flap necrosis (which was attributed to excessive flap length).111

The subscapular vascular system is very versatile, and multiple flaps can based on it to provide sufficient tissue to cover large chest wall defects.112 Chimeric scapular, parascapular, serratus muscle, and latissimus dorsi muscle flaps are commonly used to repair massive chest wall defects with success.

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Mudge M, Hughes LE. Incisional hernia: A 10 year prospective study of incidence and attitudes. Br J Surg. 1985;72:70–71
2. Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EG, Jeekel J. Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg. 2004;240:578–583; discussion 583
3. Flum DR, Horvath K, Koepsell T. Have outcomes of incisional hernia repair improved with time? A population-based analysis. Ann Surg. 2003;237:129–135
4. Breuing K, Butler CE, Ferzoco S, et al. Incisional ventral hernias: Review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair. Surgery. 2010;148:544–558
5. Houck JP, Rypins EB, Sarfeh IJ, Juler GL, Shimoda KJ. Repair of incisional hernia. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1989;169:397–399
6. Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, van den Tol MP, et al. A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:392–398
7. Gray SH, Vick CC, Graham LA, Finan KR, Neumayer LA, Hawn MT. Risk of complications from enterotomy or unplanned bowel resection during elective hernia repair. Arch Surg. 2008;143:582–586
8. Voyles CR, Richardson JD, Bland KI, Tobin GR, Flint LM, Polk HC Jr.. Emergency abdominal wall reconstruction with polypropylene mesh: Short-term benefits versus long-term complications. Ann Surg. 1981;194:219–223
9. Fernández Lobato R, Martínez Santos C, Ortega Deballon P, Fradejas López JM, Marín Lucas FJ, Moreno Azcoita M. Colocutaneous fistula due to polypropylene mesh. Hernia. 2001;5:107–109
10. Bauer JJ, Harris MT, Kreel I, Gelernt IM. Twelve-year experience with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene in the repair of abdominal wall defects. Mt Sinai J Med. 1999;66:20–25
11. Miller SH, Rudolph R. Healing in the irradiated wound. Clin Plast Surg. 1990;17:503–508
12. Mathes SJ, Alexander J. Radiation injury. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 1996;5:809–824
13. Sarikaya A, Record R, Wu CC, Tullius B, Badylak S, Ladisch M. Antimicrobial activity associated with extracellular matrices. Tissue Eng. 2002;8:63–71
14. Harth KC, Broome AM, Jacobs MR, et al. Bacterial clearance of biologic grafts used in hernia repair: An experimental study. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:2224–2229
15. Badylak SF, Coffey AC, Lantz GC, Tacker WA, Geddes LA. Comparison of the resistance to infection of intestinal submucosa arterial autografts versus polytetrafluoroethylene arterial prostheses in a dog model. J Vasc Surg. 1994;19:465–472
16. Menon NG, Rodriguez ED, Byrnes CK, Girotto JA, Goldberg NH, Silverman RP. Revascularization of human acellular dermis in full-thickness abdominal wall reconstruction in the rabbit model. Ann Plast Surg. 2003;50:523–527
17. Kim H, Bruen K, Vargo D. Acellular dermal matrix in the management of high-risk abdominal wall defects. Am J Surg. 2006;192:705–709
18. Itani KM, Rosen M, Vargo D, Awad SS, Denoto G III, Butler CERICH Study Group. . Prospective study of single-stage repair of contaminated hernias using a biologic porcine tissue matrix: The RICH Study. Surgery. 2012;152:498–505
19. Butler CE, Prieto VG. Reduction of adhesions with composite AlloDerm/polypropylene mesh implants for abdominal wall reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114:464–473
20. Burns NK, Jaffari MV, Rios CN, Mathur AB, Butler CE. Non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrices for abdominal wall reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:167–176
21. Patton JH Jr, Berry S, Kralovich KA. Use of human acellular dermal matrix in complex and contaminated abdominal wall reconstructions. Am J Surg. 2007;193:360–363; discussion 363
22. Butler CE, Langstein HN, Kronowitz SJ. Pelvic, abdominal, and chest wall reconstruction with AlloDerm in patients at increased risk for mesh-related complications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116:1263–1275; discussion 1276
23. Blatnik J, Jin J, Rosen M. Abdominal hernia repair with bridging acellular dermal matrix: An expensive hernia sac. Am J Surg. 2008;196:47–50
24. Boehmler JH IV, Butler CE, Ensor J, Kronowitz SJ. Outcomes of various techniques of abdominal fascia closure after TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:773–781
25. Jin J, Rosen MJ, Blatnik J, et al. Use of acellular dermal matrix for complicated ventral hernia repair: Does technique affect outcomes? J Am Coll Surg. 2007;205:654–660
26. Ko JH, Salvay DM, Paul BC, Wang EC, Dumanian GA. Soft polypropylene mesh, but not cadaveric dermis, significantly improves outcomes in midline hernia repairs using the components separation technique. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:836–847
27. Sandor M, Xu H, Connor J, et al. Host response to implanted porcine-derived biologic materials in a primate model of abdominal wall repair. Tissue Eng Part A. 2008;14:2021–2031
28. Gupta A, Zahriya K, Mullens PL, Salmassi S, Keshishian A. Ventral herniorrhaphy: Experience with two different biosynthetic mesh materials, Surgisis and AlloDerm. Hernia. 2006;10:419–425
29. Espinosa-de-los-Monteros A, de la Torre JI, Marrero I, Andrades P, Davis MR, Vasconez LO. Utilization of human cadaveric acellular dermis for abdominal hernia reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;58:264–267
30. Ko JH, Wang EC, Salvay DM, Paul BC, Dumanian GA. Abdominal wall reconstruction: Lessons learned from 200 “components separation” procedures. Arch Surg. 2009;144:1047–1055
31. Patel KM, Nahabedian MY, Gatti M, Bhanot P. Indications and outcomes following complex abdominal reconstruction with component separation combined with porcine acellular dermal matrix reinforcement. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;69:394–398
32. Ramirez OM, Ruas E, Dellon AL. “Components separation” method for closure of abdominal-wall defects: An anatomic and clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;86:519–526
33. Shestak KC, Edington HJ, Johnson RR. The separation of anatomic components technique for the reconstruction of massive midline abdominal wall defects: Anatomy, surgical technique, applications, and limitations revisited. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:731–738; quiz 739
34. de Vries Reilingh TS, van Goor H, Rosman C, et al. “Components separation technique” for the repair of large abdominal wall hernias. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;196:32–37
35. DiBello JN Jr, Moore JH Jr.. Sliding myofascial flap of the rectus abdominis muscles for the closure of recurrent ventral hernias. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;98:464–469
36. Levine JP, Karp NS. Restoration of abdominal wall integrity as a salvage procedure in difficult recurrent abdominal wall hernias using a method of wide myofascial release. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107:707–716; discussion 717
37. Garvey PB, Bailey CM, Baumann DP, Liu J, Butler CE. Violation of the rectus complex is not a contraindication to component separation for abdominal wall reconstruction. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214:131–139
38. Butler CE, Campbell KT. Minimally invasive component separation with inlay bioprosthetic mesh (MICSIB) for complex abdominal wall reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:698–709
39. Rosen MJ, Jin J, McGee MF, Williams C, Marks J, Ponsky JL. Laparoscopic component separation in the single-stage treatment of infected abdominal wall prosthetic removal. Hernia. 2007;11:435–440
40. Milburn ML, Shah PK, Friedman EB, et al. Laparoscopically assisted components separation technique for ventral incisional hernia repair. Hernia. 2007;11:157–161
41. Lowe JB, Garza JR, Bowman JL, Rohrich RJ, Strodel WE. Endoscopically assisted “components separation” for closure of abdominal wall defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:720–729; quiz 730
42. Saulis AS, Dumanian GA. Periumbilical rectus abdominis perforator preservation significantly reduces superficial wound complications in “separation of parts” hernia repairs. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109:2275–2280; discussion 2281
43. Tong WM, Hope W, Overby DW, Hultman CS. Comparison of outcome after mesh-only repair, laparoscopic component separation, and open component separation. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;66:551–556
44. Ghali S, Turza KC, Baumann DP, Butler CE. Minimally invasive component separation results in fewer wound-healing complications than open component separation for large ventral hernia repairs. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214:981–989
45. Heller L, Levin SL, Butler CE. Management of abdominal wound dehiscence using vacuum assisted closure in patients with compromised healing. Am J Surg. 2006;191:165–172
46. Lin SJ, Butler CE. Subtotal thigh flap and bioprosthetic mesh reconstruction for large, composite abdominal wall defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:1146–1156
47. Lannon DA, Ross GL, Addison PD, Novak CB, Lipa JE, Neligan PC. Versatility of the proximally pedicled anterolateral thigh flap and its use in complex abdominal and pelvic reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:677–688
48. Nahai F, Hill L, Hester TR. Experiences with the tensor fasciae latae flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1979;63:788–799
49. Williams JK, Carlson GW, deChalain T, Howell R, Coleman JJ. Role of tensor fasciae latae in abdominal wall reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;101:713–718
50. Silberman DA, Elliott LF II, Hoffman GW. Extended myofascial thigh flaps for repair of large full-thickness abdominal wall defects. Ann Plast Surg. 1985;15:170–176
51. de la Plaza R, Arroyo JM, Vasconez LO. Upper transverse rectus abdominis flap: The flag flap. Ann Plast Surg. 1984;12:410–418
52. Gottlieb ME, Chandrasekhar B, Terz JJ, Sherman R. Clinical applications of the extended deep inferior epigastric flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1986;78:782–792
53. Taylor GI, Corlett R, Boyd JB. The extended deep inferior epigastric flap: A clinical technique. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1983;72:751–765
54. Mathes SJ, Bostwick J III. A rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap to reconstruct abdominal wall defects. Br J Plast Surg. 1977;30:282–283
55. Ninković M, Kronberger P, Harpf C, Rumer A, Anderl H. Free innervated latissimus dorsi muscle flap for reconstruction of full-thickness abdominal wall defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;101:971–978
56. Cooper TM, Lewis N, Baldwin MA. Free groin flap revisited. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;103:918–924
57. Earle AS, Feng LJ, Jordan RB. Long saphenous vein grafts as an aid to microsurgical reconstruction of the trunk. J Reconstr Microsurg. 1990;6:165–169
58. Clement RW, Young VL, Marsh JL. Use of the greater omentum as a vascular supply for free-flap transfer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1984;74:131–132
59. Argenta LC, Marks MW, Pasyk KA. Advances in tissue expansion. Clin Plast Surg. 1985;12:159–171
60. Byrd HS, Hobar PC. Abdominal wall expansion in congenital defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989;84:347–352
61. Jacobsen WM, Petty PM, Bite U, Johnson CH. Massive abdominal-wall hernia reconstruction with expanded external/internal oblique and transversalis musculofascia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100:326–335
62. Arnold PG, Pairolero PC. Chest-wall reconstruction: An account of 500 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;98:804–810
63. Miller JI, Mansour KA, Nahai F, Jurkiewicz MJ, Hatcher CR Jr.. Single-stage complete muscle flap closure of the postpneumonectomy empyema space: A new method and possible solution to a disturbing complication. Ann Thorac Surg. 1984;38:227–231
64. Pairolero PC, Arnold PG. Intrathoracic transfer of flaps for fistulas, exposed prosthetic devices, and reinforcement of suture lines. Surg Clin North Am. 1989;69:1047–1059
65. Pate JW. One-stage operation for chronic empyema. Ann Thorac Surg. 1990;49:342
66. Thomas PA, Brouchet L. Prosthetic reconstruction of the chest wall. Thorac Surg Clin. 2010;20:551–558
67. Azarow KS, Molloy M, Seyfer AE, Graeber GM. Preoperative evaluation and general preparation for chest-wall operations. Surg Clin North Am. 1989;69:899–910
68. Sarsam MA, Moussali H. Technique of bronchial closure after pneumonectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1989;98:220–223
69. Hollaus PH, Lax F, el-Nashef BB, Hauck HH, Lucciarini P, Pridun NS. Natural history of bronchopleural fistula after pneumonectomy: A review of 96 cases. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;63:1391–1396; discussion 1396
70. Goldstraw P. Prophylaxis of postpneumonectomy empyema. Thorax. 1980;35:107–110
71. Goldstraw P. Postpneumonectomy empyema. J R Soc Med. 1993;86:559–560
72. Clagett OT, Geraci JE. A procedure for the management of postpneumonectomy empyema. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1963;45:141–145
73. Arnold PG, Pairolero PC. Intrathoracic muscle flaps: A 10-year experience in the management of life-threatening infections. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989;84:92–98; discussion 99
74. Pairolero PC, Arnold PG, Trastek VF, Meland NB, Kay PP. Postpneumonectomy empyema: The role of intrathoracic muscle transposition. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1990;99:958–966; discussion 966
75. Thourani VH, Lancaster RT, Mansour KA, Miller JI Jr.. Twenty-six years of experience with the modified Eloesser flap. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;76:401–405; discussion 405
76. Eloesser L. An operation for tuberculous empyema: 1935. Chest. 2009;136(Suppl):e30
77. Alexander J The Collapse Therapy of Pulmonary Tuberculosis. 1937 Springfield, Ill Charles C Thomas
78. Stefani A, Jouni R, Alifano M, et al. Thoracoplasty in the current practice of thoracic surgery: A single-institution 10-year experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91:263–268
79. Mineo TC, Ambrogi V, Pompeo E, Cristino B, Natali GL, Casciani CU. Comparison between intercostal and diaphragmatic flap in the surgical treatment of early bronchopleural fistula. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1997;12:675–677
80. Brewer LA III, King EL, Lilly LJ, Bai AF. Bronchial closure in pulmonary resection: A clinical and experimental study using a pedicled pericardial fat graft reinforcement. J Thorac Surg. 1953;26:507–532
81. Mineo TC, Ambrogi V. Early closure of the postpneumonectomy bronchopleural fistula by pedicled diaphragmatic flaps. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;60:714–715
82. Virkkula L, Eerola S. Use of omental pedicle for treatment of bronchial fistula after lower lobectomy: Report of two cases. Scand J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1975;9:287–290
83. Hammond DC, Fisher J, Meland NB. Intrathoracic free flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993;91:1259–1264
84. Arnold PG, Pairolero PC, Waldorf JC. The serratus anterior muscle: Intrathoracic and extrathoracic utilization. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1984;73:240–248
85. Michaels BM, Orgill DP, Decamp MM, Pribaz JJ, Eriksson E, Swanson S. Flap closure of postpneumonectomy empyema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;99:437–442
86. Stamatis G, Freitag L, Wencker M, Greschuchna D. Omentopexy and muscle transposition: Two alternative methods in the treatment of pleural empyema and mediastinitis. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1994;42:225–232
87. Mathes SJ, Nahai F Reconstructive Surgery: Principles, Anatomy, and Technique. 1997 St. Louis Quality Medical Publishing
88. Rathinam S, Venkateswaran R, Rajesh PB, Collins FJ. Reconstruction of the chest wall and the diaphragm using the inverted Y Marlex methylmethacrylate sandwich flap. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2004;26:197–201
89. Lardinois D, Müller M, Furrer M, et al. Functional assessment of chest wall integrity after methylmethacrylate reconstruction. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;69:919–923
90. McKenna RJ Jr, Mountain CF, McMurtrey MJ, Larson D, Stiles QR. Current techniques for chest wall reconstruction: Expanded possibilities for treatment. Ann Thorac Surg. 1988;46:508–512
91. le Roux BT, Shama DM. Resection of tumors of the chest wall. Curr Probl Surg. 1983;20:345–386
92. Deschamps C, Tirnaksiz BM, Darbandi R, et al. Early and long-term results of prosthetic chest wall reconstruction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999;117:588–591; discussion 591
93. Bauer JJ, Salky BA, Gelernt IM, Kreel I. Repair of large abdominal wall defects with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). Ann Surg. 1987;206:765–769
94. Hyans P, Moore JH Jr, Sinha L. Reconstruction of the chest wall with e-PTFE following major resection. Ann Plast Surg. 1992;29:321–327
95. Campbell KT, Burns NK, Rios CN, Mathur AB, Butler CE. Human versus non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrix used for ventral hernia repair: Comparison of in vivo fibrovascular remodeling and mechanical repair strength. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:2321–2332
96. Kroll SS, Walsh G, Ryan B, King RC. Risks and benefits of using Marlex mesh in chest wall reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 1993;31:303–306
97. Mansour KA, Thourani VH, Losken A, et al. Chest wall resections and reconstruction: A 25-year experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;73:1720–1725; discussion 1725
98. Dingman RO, Argenta LC. Reconstruction of the chest wall. Ann Thorac Surg. 1981;32:202–208
99. Chang RR, Mehrara BJ, Hu QY, Disa JJ, Cordeiro PG. Reconstruction of complex oncologic chest wall defects: A 10-year experience. Ann Plast Surg. 2004;52:471–479; discussion 479
100. McCormack PM. Use of prosthetic materials in chest-wall reconstruction: Assets and liabilities. Surg Clin North Am. 1989;69:965–976
101. Starzynski TE, Snyderman RK, Beattie EJ Jr.. Problems of major chest wall reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1969;44:525–535
102. Losken A, Thourani VH, Carlson GW, et al. A reconstructive algorithm for plastic surgery following extensive chest wall resection. Br J Plast Surg. 2004;57:295–302
103. Pairolero PC, Arnold PG, Harris JB. Long-term results of pectoralis major muscle transposition for infected sternotomy wounds. Ann Surg. 1991;213:583–589; discussion 589
104. Mathisen DJ, Grillo HC, Vlahakes GJ, Daggett WM. The omentum in the management of complicated cardiothoracic problems. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1988;95:677–684
105. Shrager JB, Wain JC, Wright CD, et al. Omentum is highly effective in the management of complex cardiothoracic surgical problems. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;125:526–532
106. Nahai F, Rand RP, Hester TR, Bostwick J III, Jurkiewicz MJ. Primary treatment of the infected sternotomy wound with muscle flaps: A review of 211 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989;84:434–441
107. Milano CA, Georgiade G, Muhlbaier LH, Smith PK, Wolfe WG. Comparison of omental and pectoralis flaps for poststernotomy mediastinitis. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67:377–380; discussion 380
108. López-Monjardin H, de-la-Peña-Salcedo A, Mendoza-Muñoz M, López-Yáñez-de-la-Peña A, Palacio-López E, López-García A. Omentum flap versus pectoralis major flap in the treatment of mediastinitis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;101:1481–1485
109. Hartrampf CR, Scheflan M, Black PW. Breast reconstruction with a transverse abdominal island flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1982;69:216–225
110. Netscher DT, Eladoumikdachi F, Goodman CM. Rectus abdominis muscle flaps used successfully for median sternotomy wounds after ipsilateral internal mammary artery ligation. Ann Plast Surg. 2001;47:223–228
111. Davis WM, McCraw JB, Carraway JH. Use of a direct, transverse, thoracoabdominal flap to close difficult wounds of the thorax and upper extremity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1977;60:526–533
112. Bury TF, Reece GP, Janjan NA, McMurtrey MJ. Closure of massive chest wall defects after full-thickness chest wall resection. Ann Plast Surg. 1995;34:409–414

Supplemental Digital Content

Back to Top | Article Outline
©2014American Society of Plastic Surgeons