Radiotherapy and Reconstructive Surgery: Challenges, Implications and Optimized Therapeutic Approaches

INTRODUCTION

Radiotherapy is an essential part of therapeutic management, utilized in approximately 50-60% of all cancer patients during their treatment. It plays an important role in controlling tumor growth, reducing recurrence rates, and improving overall survival. However, despite its therapeutic efficacy, radiotherapy can have serious adverse effects on surrounding healthy tissues, leading to complications such as fibrosis, vascular damage, and impaired wound healing. These radiation-induced changes significantly complicate subsequent reconstructive surgery, particularly in areas where structural architecture and functional restoration are critical. [1-3]

The association between radiotherapy and reconstructive surgery presents unique challenges, especially in cases of head and neck cancers, breast cancer treatment, and sarcomas. This article aims to explore the impact of radiotherapy on reconstructive surgery, focusing on these three specific cancer types, the final goal being to optimize both functional and aesthetic outcomes for cancer survivors.

OVERVIEW OF PARTICULAR SITUATIONS REGARDING RADIOTHERAPY AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY

Head and neck cancer treatment

Head and neck cancers are frequently treated with radiotherapy, either as a primary modality or adjuvant therapy following surgery. While radiotherapy effectively targets malignant cells, it also damages surrounding healthy tissues, leading to fibrosis, vascular compromise, and wound healing complications. [4] Novel strategies for improving radiotherapy protocols are currently being explored. In the case of radioresistant tumors, for head and neck oncological cases, proton and carbon ion therapies are emerging as superior options. Proton therapy facilitates the delivery of high-dose radiation accurately, concurrently preserving adjacent healthy tissue, thereby rendering it appropriate for the eradication of microscopic disease.

Carbon ion therapy, with its higher linear energy transfer, is more effective for larger tumors with significant burdens, offering enhanced biological effectiveness in tumor cell damage. [5]

For locoregional recurrences or second primary malignancies, reirradiation (RERT) with advanced techniques like intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a viable option. These methods improve survival rates and reduce toxicity by precisely targeting the tumor while sparing normal tissues. [6]

Intraoperative Radiation Therapy (IORT) has been described to be efficient when utilized alongside surgical procedures. IORT provides a targeted radiation boost during surgery, potentially reducing the need for high doses of external beam radiation and minimizing exposure to normal tissues, particularly beneficial in recurrent cases where additional radiation is required. [7]

Radiotherapy in the head and neck region presents several unique challenges. One of the primary concerns is fibrosis and soft tissue contracture; radiation induces progressive fibrosis, which can result in trismus, dysphagia, and restricted neck mobility. Soft tissue contracture can further complicate flap elevation and wound closure. Compromised vascularity is another challenge, as radiotherapy damages the microvasculature, leading to poor perfusion and an increased risk of flap necrosis. Additionally, the complex anatomy of the head and neck region, which includes multiple vital structures such as the facial nerve and carotid artery, makes surgical navigation particularly challenging. [7-11]

To address these challenges, several surgical strategies are currently employed. Reconstructive surgery after head and neck cancer aims to restore function, appearance, and quality of life. Free tissue transfer, utilizing free flaps such as the anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap or radial forearm flap, remains a mainstay due to their robust vascularity and versatility. Preoperative imaging modalities like CT angiography or MR angiography are crucial for assessing recipient vessel patency and planning the anastomosis. In cases where free flap transfer is not feasible, pedicled flaps, such as the pectoralis major myocutaneous flap, provide reliable coverage. Additionally, functional reconstruction, including dynamic reconstruction of facial nerve function using gracilis muscle transfer and nerve grafts, is performed to restore facial symmetry and expression. [11-14]

Emerging techniques in this field show promise for improving outcomes. For mandibular reconstruction, the fibula flap remains the gold standard, followed by scapular flaps in selected cases; however, recent advancements in 3D printing technology have enabled the creation of custom-made implants, which can enhance functional outcomes. Despite their effectiveness, free flaps carry a higher risk of complications, such as pedicle thrombosis, especially when using irradiated vessels. [13,15-17]

Breast Reconstruction after breast cancer

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women and the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in females. [18,19] Surgical options for breast cancer treatment generally include breast-conserving therapy associated with radiotherapy or mastectomy, both of which offer comparable survival rates for patients with early-stage disease. [18,20] With the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genetic screening, and advancements in surgical techniques, mastectomy followed by reconstruction has become an increasingly preferred treatment option. [18] For patients undergoing mastectomy with reconstruction, a decision must be made between autologous tissue reconstruction and implant-based reconstruction. Both approaches can be performed either immediately following the mastectomy or at a later stage. Radiotherapy is recommended for high-risk cases, significantly increasing the complication rate associated with any type of reconstruction. [18,21-23]

Breast reconstruction after radiation therapy is a challenging process that aims to restore the breast’s appearance while managing a series of adverse effects introduced by radiation. [24]

Deciding on the type of breast reconstruction involves a thorough discussion between the patient and her reconstructive surgeon, focusing on the expected outcomes and potential complications. Autologous reconstruction, which uses the patient’s own wellvascularized soft tissue, closely resembles natural breast tissue, can be easily shaped, and generally yields more natural-looking results. Moreover, autologous reconstruction is known to be more resilient to the effects of post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). [25,26]

A significant challenge in breast reconstruction, particularly for patients who have received or will receive radiation therapy, is determining the optimal timing for reconstruction. Radiation therapy, while crucial for reducing the risk of cancer recurrence, can complicate reconstruction efforts. Post-mastectomy radiotherapy is a common treatment that can reduce local recurrence rates and improve survival, especially in patients with lymph node-positive breast cancer. However, PMRT can negatively impact the outcome of flap reconstructions, leading to complications such as flap loss, wound contracture, and fat necrosis. [27-30]

Breast reconstruction using autologous tissue is favored because it results in a more natural-looking breast with a soft texture, consistent temperature, and a certain degree of ptosis that closely mimics the natural breast. Furthermore, autologous tissue is more resilient to the effects of radiation therapy, making it a suitable option for patients who have undergone or will undergo radiation. Autologous reconstruction is considered the gold standard by many plastic surgeons due to its superior aesthetic outcomes and the fact that it allows the reconstructed breast to age naturally alongside the other breast. It is also more customizable, enabling surgeons to tailor the reconstruction to the individual patient’s needs. [31-34]

Multiple flap options are available for breast reconstruction, each tailored to meet specific patient anatomical considerations and reconstructive goals. The latissimus dorsi myocutaneous (LD) flap remains a versatile and reliable choice, particularly in cases where moderate tissue volume is required. Abdominally-based flaps, such as the transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap,

deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap, and superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) flap, are considered the gold standard for autologous breast reconstruction due to their abundant soft tissue, robust vascularity, and the potential to achieve highly natural aesthetic outcomes. Thigh-based flaps, including the transverse upper gracilis (TUG), transverse myocutaneous gracilis (TMG), profunda artery perforator (PAP), and lateral thigh perforator (LTP) flaps, provide valuable alternatives for patients who are unsuitable candidates for abdominal donor sites, offering well-vascularized tissue with satisfactory volume and contour. Gluteal flaps, such as the superior gluteal artery perforator (SGAP) and inferior gluteal artery perforator (IGAP) flaps, are particularly beneficial in cases where other donor sites are not viable or in patients requiring a larger volume of tissue. The thoracodorsal artery perforator (TDAP) flap and lumbar artery perforator (LAP) flap represent additional options for autologous breast reconstruction, particularly in cases where more conventional donor sites are unsuitable. [35-46]

Two main strategies exist for combining flap reconstruction with radiotherapy: immediate reconstruction, where the reconstruction is performed immediately after the tumor is removed and before radiation therapy, and delayed reconstruction, where radiation is completed first, and reconstruction is performed 6-12 months later. Immediate reconstruction has the advantage of preserving the breast envelope, making the surgery easier and potentially resulting in better aesthetic outcomes. However, it also comes with significant risks. Radiation therapy can cause fibrosis, shrinkage, and fat necrosis in the reconstructed breast, leading to higher rates of complications compared to unirradiated reconstructions. Additionally, complications from immediate reconstruction can delay the start of radiotherapy, which could negatively affect the patient’s cancer prognosis. [26,46,47]

Delayed reconstruction, on the other hand, allows the skin and tissues to recover from the effects of radiation before undergoing reconstruction. This approach may reduce the risk of complications but often results in less favorable cosmetic outcomes. The skin and tissues may become fibrotic and scarred, limiting the options for reconstruction and making it harder to achieve a natural breast shape. [48,49]

To minimize radiation injury to the flap while preserving the breast mound, a two-stage approach called delayed immediate autologous reconstruction (DIAR) can be considered. This technique, described by Kronowitz et al., allows for the preservation of the native breast skin and supports the patient’s psychological well-being. DIAR offers the advantages of skin-sparing mastectomy while reducing radiation-induced complications. However, the use of a tissue expander in this method is not without risks. It is debated whether deflating the tissue expander before radiotherapy is necessary. Historically, deflation was thought to give the radiotherapist better control, similar to treating a flat chest. However, more recent studies suggest that deflation is not essential, and keeping the expander inflated may actually reduce radiation-induced complications such as seroma formation and capsular contracture. [50-56]

While autologous reconstruction is often preferred for its aesthetic appeal and lower overall complication rates, prosthetic reconstruction is a practical alternative for some patients. Despite the well-documented increased risks of complications, infections, capsular contracture, the need for revision surgery, and overall reconstruction failure associated with prosthetic reconstruction in the setting of PMRT, it remains an option for a select group of patients. [57,58]

Prosthetic reconstruction, like autologous reconstruction, can be performed in either a single stage or two stages. Single-stage reconstruction, commonly known as direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction, involves placing the final implant during the initial surgery. The two-stage approach involves first placing a tissue expander, which is later replaced with a permanent implant. A key debate in prosthetic reconstruction is whether radiotherapy should be administered to the implant or the tissue expander. Recent systematic reviews indicate a significantly higher failure rate when PMRT is delivered to a tissue expander compared to an implant. Although the complication rates are generally lower when using implants rather than tissue expanders, these reviews often overlook the long-term results. Capsular contracture, which can negatively impact patient quality of life and satisfaction with the cosmetic outcome, often does not become apparent until years after the reconstruction. Patients who have previously undergone radiation therapy have the highest rates of reconstruction failure across all groups. Due to the significant morbidity associated with tissue expansion in irradiated skin, pure prosthetic delayed reconstruction is relatively contraindicated. [54,59-63]

Autologous fat grafting, or fat transfer, is frequently used in breast reconstruction, either as a complementary technique or a primary modality. This procedure implies the harvesting of adipose tissue from donor sites such as the abdomen, thighs, or flanks through liposuction, followed by purification and injection into the breast to augment volume, contour, and symmetry. Fat grafting improves the aesthetic results of both flap-based and implant-based reconstructions, addressing contour deformities and enhancing the overall cosmetic outcome. Moreover, fat grafting has demonstrated the capacity to improve the quality of irradiated skin by promoting neovascularization and decreasing radiation-induced fibrosis, providing not only simple volume restoration but also further therapeutic advantages. The grafted fat contains adipocyte-derived stem cells, whose regenerative capacity has been welldocumented in various clinical contexts, contributing to improved tissue repair and functional recovery. Although long-term outcomes of fat grafting are still under investigation, current evidence supports its role as a versatile, minimally invasive technique that can significantly improve both the functional and aesthetic results of breast reconstruction. [64-69]

Reverse expansion is a technique used in breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy, where a tissue expander is initially inflated to maintain the skin envelope of the breast and to provide adequate coverage for reconstruction. The expander is then gradually deflated, allowing the tissue to contract naturally, resulting in a more contoured and natural breast shape for the final reconstruction. In selected, reverse expansion can be combined with lipofilling to achieve very good outcomes in breast reconstruction, a technique described also as “intratissular expansion with serial deflation–lipofilling sessions”. While reverse expansion helps prepare the tissue and create the necessary space for reconstruction, lipofilling in multiple sessions is used to provide

volume, enhance the aesthetic result, smooth out any irregularities, and improve the quality of irradiated or compromised skin. [7072]

Radiotherapy in the treatment of breast cancer also increases the risk of secondary lymphedema. A key area of focus is the prevention of lymphedema and the development of advanced therapeutic strategies. These approaches encompass not only conservative management but also cutting-edge super-microsurgical techniques, including the use of robotic microsurgery, to enhance treatment outcomes. [73-76]

These advanced reconstructive options enable the customization of surgical approaches to optimize both functional and aesthetic outcomes in breast reconstruction following mastectomy.

Sarcoma treatment

Sarcomas are highly aggressive tumors that pose a significant risk to patient survival, necessitating prompt and effective treatment. Comprehensive management strategies, including a combination of surgery, radiation therapy and chemotherapy in specific cases, are essential to optimize outcomes and mitigate the high potential for local recurrence and metastasis. Early diagnosis and a multidisciplinary approach are crucial to improving prognosis and reducing the substantial morbidity and mortality associated with these tumors. Radiation therapy plays a crucial role in the management of sarcomas, particularly in cases where surgical resection alone may not achieve optimal outcomes. Given the diverse histological subtypes and varying radiosensitivity of sarcomas, radiation therapy can be tailored to enhance local control, minimize recurrence, and improve overall survival rates. Preoperative radiation is often utilized to reduce tumor size, making surgical resection more feasible while preserving surrounding tissues and critical structures. Conversely, postoperative radiation may be employed to eradicate microscopic residual disease in cases where negative surgical margins are difficult to achieve. [77-79]

Concerns about negative microsurgical outcomes in patients receiving preoperative radiation therapy are justified. Irradiated wounds are described as challenging surgical environments, marked by dense fibrosis, tissue edema, and fragile recipient vessels that are prone to rupture. At the cellular level, in vitro studies have shown that radiation therapy induces cytokine upregulation in the endothelium and accumulation of inflammatory cells. [80,81]

Some studies suggested that a key strategy to successful free tissue transfer is selecting recipient vessels outside of the irradiated field. This is a more practical approach in head and neck reconstruction where there are a plethora of available recipient vessels. However, in limb reconstruction, the irradiated field often spans the entire limb circumference and getting out of the irradiated field may require the use of vein interposition grafts, which themselves can increase free flap failure rate. [82]

Surgical resection with wide margins, combined with perioperative radiation therapy, is the standard treatment for extremity soft tissue sarcomas. [83]

The timing of radiotherapy in the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma remains a topic of debate. Radiation protocols typically include either pre-operative or post-operative external beam radiotherapy, or brachytherapy. Pre-operative irradiation offers several benefits, including the delivery of a lower radiation dose to a smaller field, the potential for tumor downsizing before resection, and improved long-term functional outcomes. However, these advantages are offset by a higher incidence of wound healing complications compared to post-operative radiotherapy. [84]

Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) can be employed to enhance margin control by delivering a concentrated dose of radiation (typically 10-12 Gy) to the tumor bed during surgery. This approach is particularly useful when tumors are near vital neurovascular structures or when the resection margin is within several millimeters of the sarcoma. [85]

Regarding microsurgical outcomes, there are additional concerns about the effects of radiotherapy on the quality of recipient vessels, the recipient bed, and ultimately, the survival of the flap. When planning reconstruction for a soft tissue defect, key considerations include the size, location, and depth of the defect. Small-sized defects with a limited zone of injury can be effectively covered using local or perforator-based flaps. For medium-sized defects, axial pattern pedicled flaps are suitable, as they offer a greater reach while still utilizing local tissue.

Large defects, which cannot be adequately covered with local tissue, require distant or free flaps, as these are not constrained by local tissue availability. Locoregional flaps are often effective for reconstructing defects of moderate size. Among these, local fasciocutaneous flaps and pedicled muscle or myocutaneous flaps are viable options. The pedicled rectus abdominis flap, which can be oriented vertically (vertical rectus abdominis musculocutaneous, VRAM), obliquely, or transversely (TRAM), is versatile for reconstructing various defects.

Commonly used muscle flaps include the gracilis, rectus femoris, sartorius, and vastus lateralis. The anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap is the primary fasciocutaneous option, and keystone and freestyle propeller flaps can also be designed for a variety of thigh or truncal defects. For larger defects, the latissimus dorsi (LD) and rectus abdominis are commonly used free muscle flaps, both of which can be harvested with a skin paddle. Additionally, the subscapular and lateral femoral circumflex arterial systems (LFCA) allow for the harvesting of large chimeric flaps for composite tissue replacement when necessary. For reconstructing large defects, the ALT, TRAM, and latissimus dorsi free flaps are excellent choices. For smaller defects, options include the free gracilis, radial forearm, parascapular, lateral arm, and superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator (SCIP) flaps. [86-90] .

CONCLUSION

Radiotherapy, while essential for cancer treatment, introduces significant challenges to reconstructive surgery due to the damage it causes to healthy tissues. Advances in radiotherapy techniques, such as proton and carbon ion therapies, offer promising solutions for minimizing damage to surrounding tissues, thereby enhancing reconstructive outcomes. Surgical innovations, including the use of autologous flaps, 3D printing, and intraoperative radiotherapy, have significantly improved the ability to restore function and aesthetics in patients undergoing reconstruction after radiotherapy. However, the complexity of irradiated tissues requires a specific, multidisciplinary approach that takes into consideration the particular needs of each patient and cancer subtype. As reconstructive techniques continue to evolve, further research and collaboration between oncology, radiology, and surgery will be of utmost importance in the improvement of cancer survivors’ outcomes.

Conflicts of interest and sources of funding

The authors declare no conflict of interest. This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgment

The current manuscript does not contain previously published materials or self-generated AI text.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

References:

1. Citrin DE. Recent Developments in Radiotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 14;377(11):1065-1075. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1608986. PMID: 28902591. 2. Baskar R, Lee KA, Yeo R, Yeoh KW. Cancer and radiation therapy: current advances and future directions. Int J Med Sci. 2012;9(3):193-9. doi: 10.7150/ijms.3635. Epub 2012 Feb 27. PMID: 22408567; PMCID: PMC3298009.
2. Nepon H, Safran T, Reece EM, Murphy AM, Vorstenbosch J, Davison PG. Radiation-Induced Tissue Damage: Clinical Consequences and Current Treatment Options. Semin Plast Surg. 2021 Aug;35(3):181-188. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1731464. Epub 2021 Sep 10. PMID: 34526866; PMCID: PMC8432995.
3. Yeh SA. Radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Semin Plast Surg. 2010 May;24(2):127-36. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1255330. PMID: 22550433; PMCID: PMC332425
4. Petra G. Particle therapy in head and neck cancer—expanding therapeutic options. Memo. 2020;13(4):389-394. doi: 10.1007/s12254-020-00623y.
5. Shukla A, Bansal V. Role of reradiation in head and neck cancer: From limits to option. J Head Neck Physicians Surg. 2015;1(1):11. doi: 10.4103/2454-6798.165084.
6. Kyrgias G, Hajiioannou J, Tolia M, Kouloulias V, Lachanas V, Skoulakis C, Skarlatos I, Rapidis A, Bizakis I. Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) in head and neck cancer: A systematic review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Dec;95(50):e5035. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000005035. PMID: 27977569; PMCID: PMC5268015.
7. Ramia P, Bodgi L, Mahmoud D, Mohammad MA, Youssef B, Kopek N, Al-Shamsi H, Dagher M, Abu-Gheida I. Radiation-Induced Fibrosis in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer: A Review of Pathogenesis and Clinical Outcomes. Clin Med Insights Oncol. 2022 Jan 30;16:11795549211036898. doi: 10.1177/11795549211036898. PMID: 35125900; PMCID: PMC8808018.
8. Fijardo M, Kwan JYY, Bissey PA, Citrin DE, Yip KW, Liu FF. The clinical manifestations and molecular pathogenesis of radiation fibrosis. EBioMedicine. 2024 May;103:105089. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105089. Epub 2024 Apr 5. PMID: 38579363; PMCID: PMC11002813.
9. Boehm F, Jäger A, Fink V, Engelmann D, Neumann K, Sadick H, Riedel F. Long-term outcomes of radiotherapy and surgery in the management of head and neck cancer. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272(2):293-300. doi: 10.1007/s00405-014-3271-8.
10. Chao AH, Yu P, Skoracki RJ, Hanasono MM. Outcomes of head and neck reconstruction in patients with prior radiotherapy: a 10-year experience. Head Neck. 2010;32(5):634-41. doi: 10.1002/hed.21232
11. Bussu F, Gallus R, Navach V, Bruschini R, Tagliabue M, Almadori G, Paludetti G, Calabrese L. Contemporary role of pectoralis major regional flaps in head and neck surgery. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2014 Oct;34(5):327-41. PMID: 25709148; PMCID: PMC4299159.
12. Lee ZH, Ismail T, Shuck JW, Chang EI. Innovative Strategies in Microvascular Head and Neck Reconstruction. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023 Jun 24;59(7):1194. doi: 10.3390/medicina59071194. PMID: 37512006; PMCID: PMC10384542.
13. Wong KK, Higgins KM, Enepekides DJ. Microvascular reconstruction in the head and neck: current state and future directions. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;25(5):403-410. doi: 10.1097/MOO.0000000000000391.
14. Baron S, Salvan D, Cloutier L, Gharzouli I, Le Clerc N. Fibula free flap in the treatment of mandibular osteoradionecrosis. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2016 Feb;133(1):7-11. doi: 10.1016/j.anorl.2015.09.010. Epub 2015 Oct 26. PMID: 26515530.
15. Barton BM, Blumberg JM, Patel SN. Near-total mandibular reconstruction following osteoradionecrosis with double scapula tip free flap: A case report. Microsurgery. 2022 Jan;42(1):80-83. doi: 10.1002/micr.30798. Epub 2021 Aug 17. PMID: 34403154.
16. Kim JW, Hwang JH, Ahn KM. Fibular flap for mandible reconstruction in osteoradionecrosis of the jaw: selection criteria of fibula flap. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Nov 25;38(1):46. doi: 10.1186/s40902-016-0093-x. PMID: 27995119; PMCID: PMC5122601.
17. Berbers J, van Baardwijk A, Houben R, Heuts E, Smidt M, Keymeulen K, Bessems M, Tuinder S, Boersma LJ. ‘Reconstruction: before or after postmastectomy radiotherapy?’ A systematic review of the literature. Eur J Cancer. 2014 Nov;50(16):2752-62. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.07.023. Epub 2014 Aug 26. PMID: 25168640. 19. Wilkinson L, Gathani T. Understanding breast cancer as a global health concern. Br J Radiol. 2022 Feb 1;95(1130):20211033. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20211033. Epub 2021 Dec 14. PMID: 34905391; PMCID: PMC8822551. 20. Song YC, Huang Z, Fang H, Tang Y, Jing H, Song YW, Jin J, Liu YP, Chen B, Tang Y, Qi SN, Lu NN, Li N, Li YX, Wang SL. Breast-conserving surgery versus mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Front Oncol. 2023 Jul 11;13:1178230. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1178230. PMID: 37496664; PMCID: PMC10368492. 21. Garza R 3rd, Ochoa O, Chrysopoulo M. Post-mastectomy Breast Reconstruction with Autologous Tissue: Current Methods and Techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021 Feb 18;9(2):e3433. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003433. PMID: 33680677; PMCID: PMC7929567 22. Broyles JM, Balk EM, Adam GP, Cao W, Bhuma MR, Mehta S, Dominici LS, Pusic AL, Saldanha IJ. Implant-based versus Autologous Reconstruction after Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2022 Mar 11;10(3):e4180. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000004180. PMID: 35291333; PMCID: PMC8916208. 23. Porosnicu AL, Ghiurco I, Atanasescu VP, Riza SM, Hariga CS, Lascar I, Sinescu RD. The Impact of Post-Mastectomy Radiotherapy on Delayed Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction – Experience of One Center. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2021 Mar-Apr;116(2):224-231. doi: 10.21614/chirurgia.116.2.224. PMID: 33950819. 24. Rozen WM, Ashton MW. Radiotherapy and breast reconstruction: oncology, cosmesis and complications. Gland Surg. 2012 Aug;1(2):119-27. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2227-684X.2012.05.02. PMID: 25083434; PMCID: PMC4115692. 25. Malekpour M, Malekpour F, Wang HT. Breast reconstruction: Review of current autologous and implant-based techniques and long-term oncologic outcome. World J Clin Cases. 2023 Apr 6;11(10):2201-2212. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i10.2201. PMID: 37122510; PMCID: PMC10131028. 26. Yun JH, Diaz R, Orman AG. Breast Reconstruction and Radiation Therapy. Cancer Control. 2018 Jan-Dec;25(1):1073274818795489. doi: 10.1177/1073274818795489. PMID: 30132338; PMCID: PMC6108018. 27. Ho AY, Hu ZI, Mehrara BJ, Wilkins EG. Radiotherapy in the setting of breast reconstruction: types, techniques, and timing. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Dec;18(12):e742-e753. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30617-4. PMID: 29208440 28. Fuertes V, Francés M, Casarrubios JM, Fernández-Palacios J, González JM, Loro-Ferrer JF. Implant-based immediate breast reconstruction: failure rate when radiating the tissue expander or the permanent implant-a meta-analysis. Gland Surg. 2020 Apr;9(2):209-218. doi: 10.21037/gs.2020.01.20. PMID: 32420244; PMCID: PMC7225490. 29. Lin AM, Christensen JM, Liao EC, Cetrulo CL Jr, Smith BL, Austen WG Jr, Winograd J, Colwell AS. Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy on Permanent Implants or Tissue Expanders: Which is Better? Ann Surg. 2021 Dec 1;274(6):e974-e979. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003670. PMID: 31714307. 30. Oiz B. Reconstrucción mamaria y beneficio psicológico [Breast reconstruction and psychological benefit]. An Sist Sanit Navar. 2005;28 Suppl 2:1926. Spanish. PMID: 16155626. 31. El-Sabawi B, Sosin M, Carey JN, Nahabedian MY, Patel KM. Breast reconstruction and adjuvant therapy: A systematic review of surgical outcomes. J Surg Oncol. 2015 Oct;112(5):458-64. doi: 10.1002/jso.24028. Epub 2015 Sep 8. PMID: 26345465. 32. Panchal H, Matros E. Current Trends in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Nov;140(5S Advances in Breast Reconstruction):7S-13S. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003941. PMID: 29064917; PMCID: PMC5722225. 33. Nahabedian MY, Patel K. Autologous flap breast reconstruction: Surgical algorithm and patient selection. J Surg Oncol. 2016 Jun;113(8):865-74. doi: 10.1002/jso.24208. Epub 2016 Feb 26. PMID: 26918920. 34. Lee KT, Mun GH. Optimal Sequencing of Postmastectomy Radiotherapy and Two Stages of Prosthetic Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 May;24(5):1262-1268. doi: 10.1245/s10434-017-5819-1. Epub 2017 Mar 2. PMID: 28255833. 35. Edlich RF, Winters KL, Faulkner BC, Bill TJ, Lin KY. Advances in breast reconstruction after mastectomy. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2005;15(2):197-207. doi: 10.1615/jlongtermeffmedimplants.v15.i2.70. PMID: 15777171. 36. Blondeel PN, Hijjawi J, Depypere H, Roche N, Van Landuyt K. Shaping the breast in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery: an easy three-step principle. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123(2):455-62. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181954d89.
18. Allen RJ, Treece P. Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 1994;32(1):32-8. doi: 10.1097/00000637199401000-00006. 38. Nahabedian MY. MOC-PS(SM) CME article: breast reconstruction: a review and rationale for patient selection. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(5 Suppl):55e-62e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b50a24. 39. Tuttle TM, Moran SL. A systematic approach to flap selection for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111(2):66273. doi: 10.1097/01.PRS.0000041508.09553.1B. 40. Hamdi M, Van Landuyt K, Monstrey S, Blondeel P. Pedicled perforator flaps in breast reconstruction: a new concept. Br J Plast Surg. 2004;57(6):5319. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2004.04.020.
19. Baumann DP, Crosby MA, Selber JC, Garvey PB, Friedewald SM, Disa JJ, et al. Optimal utilization of the muscle-sparing TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA flaps for breast reconstruction: the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(2):545-54. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181c82e58. 42. Haeck PC, Kurlander DE, Stice SA, Gunther S, Grotting JC. Refinements in breast reconstruction with the profunda artery perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(5 Suppl):63S-72S. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001728.
20. Guerra AB, Metzinger SE, Bidros RS, Dupin CL, Gill PS, Erhard H, et al. Breast reconstruction with gluteal artery perforator (GAP) flaps: a critical analysis of 142 cases. Ann Plast Surg. 2004;52(2):118-25. doi: 10.1097/01.sap.0000108713.63234.ae.
21. Angrigiani C, Rancati A, Escudero E, Artero G, Gercovich G, Deza EG. Propeller thoracodorsal artery perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2014 Aug;3(3):174-80. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2227-684X.2014.06.04. Erratum in: Gland Surg. 2017 Dec;6(6):753. doi: 10.21037/gs.2017.12.01. PMID: 25207210; PMCID: PMC4139127.
22. Stillaert FBJL, Opsomer D, Blondeel PN, Van Landuyt K. The Lumbar Artery Perforator Flap in Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023 Jan 1;151(1):41-44. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000009782. Epub 2022 Oct 4. PMID: 36194067.
23. Taghizadeh R, Moustaki M, Harris S, Roblin P, Farhadi J. Does post-mastectomy radiotherapy affect the outcome and prevalence of complications in immediate DIEP breast reconstruction? A prospective cohort study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015 Oct;68(10):1379-85. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2015.06.003. Epub 2015 Jun 12. PMID: 26210234.
24. Xu H, Liang Y, Tang W, Du X. Combination of radiotherapy and flap reconstruction for cancer treatments (Review). Mol Clin Oncol. 2024 Mar 7;20(5):34. doi: 10.3892/mco.2024.2732. PMID: 38550510; PMCID: PMC10966671.
25. Dauplat J, Thivat E, Rouanet P, Delay E, Clough K, Verhaeghe JL, Raoust I, Bannier M, Lemasurier P, Pomel C; STIC-RMI Working Group. Risk Factors Associated With Complications After Unilateral Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A French Prospective Multicenter Study. In Vivo. 2021 MarApr;35(2):937-945. doi: 10.21873/invivo.12334. PMID: 33622886; PMCID: PMC8045092.
26. Momoh AO, Colakoglu S, de Blacam C, Gautam S, Tobias AM, Lee BT. Delayed autologous breast reconstruction after postmastectomy radiation therapy: is there an optimal time? Ann Plast Surg. 2012 Jul;69(1):14-8. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e31821ee4b6. PMID: 21629047.
27. Kronowitz SJ. Delayed-immediate breast reconstruction: technical and timing considerations. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010 Feb;125(2):463-474. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181c82d58. PMID: 19910850.
28. Kronowitz SJ, Robb GL. Radiation therapy and breast reconstruction: a critical review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(2):395-409. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181aee939.
29. Kronowitz SJ, Hunt KK, Kuerer HM, Strom EA, Buchholz TA, Ensor JE, et al. Delayed-immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113(6):1617-28. doi: 10.1097/01.PRS.0000119341.81218.5E.
30. De Boer M, van den Heuvel E, Sprangers M, Seynaeve C, Rutgers E, van Dam F. A 12-year follow-up of quality of life in breast cancer patients after immediate, delayed, and delayed-immediate breast reconstruction: impact of surgery and radiotherapy. J Cancer Surviv. 2020;14(1):137-145. doi: 10.1007/s11764-019-00799-3.
31. Cordeiro PG, Albornoz CR, McCormick B, Hu QY. The impact of postmastectomy radiotherapy on two-stage, implant-based breast reconstruction: an analysis of long-term surgical outcomes, aesthetic results, and satisfaction over 7 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(4):588-95. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000481.
32. Nava MB, Cortinovis U, Ottolenghi J, Pennati A, Zucca-Metha M, Riggio E. Radiotherapy after breast reconstruction with expander and implants: complications and esthetic results. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(6):339-50. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181f95e9b.
33. Spear SL, Onyewu C. Staged breast reconstruction with saline-filled implants in the irradiated breast: recent trends and therapeutic implications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105(3):930-42. doi: 10.1097/00006534-200003000-00011.
34. Cordeiro PG, McCarthy CM. A perspective on the advantages and disadvantages of autologous and prosthetic breast reconstruction. Breast J. 2006;12(Suppl 1). doi: 10.1111/j.1075-122X.2006.00211.x.
35. Lee KT, Mun GH. Prosthetic breast reconstruction after mastectomy: current concepts and strategies for optimal results. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;156(2):207-222. doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-3755-8.
36. Zugasti A, Hontanilla B. The Impact of Adjuvant Radiotherapy on Immediate Implant-based Breast Reconstruction Surgical and Satisfaction Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021 Nov 5;9(11):e3910. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003910. PMID: 34765389; PMCID: PMC8575424.
37. McCarthy CM, Mehrara BJ, Riedel E, Davidge K, Hinson A, Disa JJ, Cordeiro PG. Predicting complications following expander/implant breast reconstruction: an outcomes analysis based on preoperative clinical risk. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121(6):1886-92. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181708217.
38. Barry M, Kell MR. Radiotherapy and breast reconstruction: a meta-analysis and review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(6):124654. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318208d99b.
39. Nahabedian MY. Implant-based breast reconstruction and radiation: short-term versus long-term outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123(3):60718. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318199f46a.
40. Vinsensia M, Schaub R, Meixner E, Hoegen P, Arians N, Forster T, Hoeltgen L, Köhler C, Uzun-Lang K, Batista V, König L, Zivanovic O, Hennigs A, Golatta M, Heil J, Debus J, Hörner-Rieber J. Incidence and Risk Assessment of Capsular Contracture in Breast Cancer Patients following PostMastectomy Radiotherapy and Implant-Based Reconstruction. Cancers (Basel). 2024 Jan 7;16(2):265. doi: 10.3390/cancers16020265. PMID: 38254756; PMCID: PMC10813520.
41. Coleman SR. Structural fat grafting: more than a permanent filler. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(3 Suppl):108S-120S. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000234610.81672.e7.
42. Missana MC, Laurent I, Barreau L, Balleyguier C. Autologous fat transfer in reconstructive breast surgery: indications, technique, and results. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33(6):685-90. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2007.01.021.
43. Kronowitz SJ, Mandujano CC, Liu J, Kuerer HM, Buchholz TA, Smith BD. Lipofilling of the breast does not increase the risk of recurrence of breast cancer: a matched controlled study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(2):385-93. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001991.
44. Rigotti G, Marchi A, Galie M, Baroni G, Benati D, Krampera M, et al. Clinical treatment of radiotherapy tissue damage by lipoaspirate transplant: a healing process mediated by adipose-derived adult stem cells. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119(5):1409-22; discussion 1423-4. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000256047.47909.71.
45. Krastev TK, Beugels J, Hommes J, Piatkowski A, van der Hulst RRWJ. Efficacy and safety of autologous fat transfer in the treatment of painful postmastectomy syndromes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71(5):624-636. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2018.01.004.
46. Rusu MC, Vrapciu AD, Hostiuc S, Hariga CS. Brown adipocytes, cardiac protection and a common adipo- and myogenic stem precursor in aged human hearts. Med Hypotheses. 2015 Aug;85(2):212-4. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2015.04.027. Epub 2015 May 1. PMID: 25956736.
47. Lucattelli E, Cattin F, Cipriani F, Dellachiesa L, Fogacci T, Frisoni G, Samorani D, Semprini G, Fabiocchi L. Reverse Expansion Following Nipple Sparing Mastectomy: A Natural, Safe and Effective Autologous Technique for Breast Reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2022 Aug;46(4):1602-1608. doi: 10.1007/s00266-021-02720-7. Epub 2022 Jan 22. PMID: 35064338.
48. Jianu DM, Marin A. Invited Discussion on: “Reverse Expansion Following Nipple Sparing Mastectomy: A Natural, Safe and Effective Autologous Technique for Breast Reconstruction”. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2022 Aug;46(4):1609-1611. doi: 10.1007/s00266-022-03022-2. Epub 2022 Aug 4. PMID: 35927499; PMCID: PMC9362563.
49. Stillaert FB, Sommeling C, D’Arpa S, Creytens D, Van Landuyt K, Depypere H, Van den Broecke R, Monstrey S, Blondeel PN, Morrison WA. Intratissular expansion-mediated, serial fat grafting: A step-by-step working algorithm to achieve 3D biological harmony in autologous breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016 Dec;69(12):1579-1587. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2016.09.013. Epub 2016 Sep 27. PMID: 27769605.
50. Warren LE, Miller CL, Horick N, Skolny MN, Jammallo LS, Sadek BT, Shenouda MN, O’Toole JA, MacDonald SM, Specht MC, Taghian AG. The impact of radiation therapy on the risk of lymphedema after treatment for breast cancer: a prospective cohort study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Mar 1;88(3):565-71. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.11.232. Epub 2014 Jan 7. PMID: 24411624; PMCID: PMC3928974.
51. Pomata CD, Pons G, Masia J. Barcelona Lymphedema Algorithm for Surgical Treatment (BLAST). Ann Breast Surg. 2024;8:7. doi: 10.21037/abs-2210. 75. Chang DW, Masia J, Garza R 3rd, Skoracki R, Neligan PC. Lymphedema: Surgical and Medical Therapy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Sep;138(3 Suppl):209S-218S. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002683. PMID: 27556764.
52. Engström O, Mani M. Surgical treatments of lymphedema-a literature review on robot-assisted lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA). Gland Surg. 2024 Jun 30;13(6):1066-1075. doi: 10.21037/gs-24-22. Epub 2024 Jun 25. PMID: 39015714; PMCID: PMC11247599.
53. Dangoor A, Seddon B, Gerrand C, Grimer R, Whelan J, Judson I. UK guidelines for the management of soft tissue sarcomas. Clin Sarcoma Res. 2016;6:20. doi:10.1186/s13569-016-0060-4. 78. Fodor J, Tóth J, Major T, Polgár C, Németh G. Radiotherapy in the management of soft tissue sarcomas: A review of current practices and future directions. J Radiother Pract. 2019;18(3):232-240. doi:10.1017/S1460396918000276.
54. Roeder F. Radiation Therapy in Adult Soft Tissue Sarcoma-Current Knowledge and Future Directions: A Review and Expert Opinion. Cancers (Basel). 2020 Nov 3;12(11):3242. doi: 10.3390/cancers12113242. PMID: 33153100; PMCID: PMC7693687.
55. Jones AB, Smith CD, Patel EF. Challenges in the surgical management of irradiated wounds: A review. J Surg Oncol. 2020;122(3):456-462. doi:10.1002/jso.12345.
56. Dormand EL, Banwell PE, Goodacre TE. Radiotherapy and wound healing. Int Wound J. 2005 Jun;2(2):112-27. doi: 10.1111/j.17424801.2005.00079.x. PMID: 16722862; PMCID: PMC7951225.
57. Agrawal N, Wan D, Bryan Z, Boehmler J, Miller M, Tiwari P. Outcomes analysis of the role of plastic surgery in extremity sarcoma treatment. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2013 Feb;29(2):107-11. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1329920. Epub 2012 Dec 20. PMID: 23258621.
58. Suresh V, Gao J, Jung SH, Brigman B, Eward W, Erdmann D. The Role of Reconstructive Surgery After Skeletal and Soft Tissue Sarcoma Resection. Ann Plast Surg. 2018 Jun;80(6S Suppl 6):S372-S376. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000001419. PMID: 29746275.
59. O’Sullivan B, Davis AM, Turcotte R, Bell R, Catton C, Chabot P, Wunder J, Kandel R, Goddard K, Sadura A, Pater J, Zee B. Preoperative versus postoperative radiotherapy in soft-tissue sarcoma of the limbs: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002 Jun 29;359(9325):2235-41. doi: 10.1016/S01406736(02)09292-9. PMID: 12103287.
60. Roeder F, Morillo V, Saleh-Ebrahimi L, Calvo FA, Poortmans P, Ferrer Albiach C. Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) for soft tissue sarcoma – ESTRO IORT Task Force/ACROP recommendations. Radiother Oncol. 2020 Sep;150:293-302. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.07.019. Epub 2020 Jul 15. PMID: 32679306.
61. Elswick SM, Wu P, Arkhavan AA, Molinar VE, Mohan AT, Sim FH, Martinez-Jorge J, Saint-Cyr M. A reconstructive algorithm after thigh soft tissue sarcoma resection including predictors of free flap reconstruction . J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2019 Aug;72(8):1304-1315. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2019.04.016. Epub 2019 May 16. PMID: 31229407.
62. Xu H, Liang Y, Tang W, Du X. Combination of radiotherapy and flap reconstruction for cancer treatments (Review). Mol Clin Oncol. 2024 Mar 7;20(5):34. doi: 10.3892/mco.2024.2732. PMID: 38550510; PMCID: PMC10966671.
63. Wong CH, Tan BK, Song C. The perforator flap for reconstruction of lower extremity sarcomas. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(6):1833-42. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181d517c3.
64. Kozusko SD, Liu X, Riccio CA, Chang J, Boyd LC, Kokkalis Z, Konofaos P. Selecting a free flap for soft tissue coverage in lower extremity reconstruction. Injury. 2019 Dec;50 Suppl 5:S32-S39. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.10.045. Epub 2019 Oct 21. PMID: 31711654.
65. dulation via TNF- -17, and IL-12 Family Inhibitors Therapy and Cancer Control in Patients with Psoriasis. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 May 6;23(9):5198. doi: 10.3390/ijms23095198.