Non-contrast Magnetic Resonance Angiography Versus Contrast-enhanced Computed Tomography in Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator (DIEP) Flap Planning: A 4-year Non-inferiority Cohort Study

Clicks: 1
ID: 320084
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #69 of 72 articles by views in Aesthetic surgery journal

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contrast-enhanced computed tomography angiography (CTA) is considered the "gold standard" in deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) planning, despite its use of iodine-based contrast and ionizing radiation exposure. In contrast, magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) provides a radiation-free alternative, but conventional MRA requires the use of an expensive and potentially harmful gadolinium-based contrast agent. The development of contrast-free MRA protocols that preserve perforator mapping accuracy represents a promising area of investigation in DIEP flap planning. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether an optimized non-contrast MRA protocol is non-inferior to contrast-enhanced CTA in planning for delayed DIEP flap breast reconstruction (BR). METHODS: This cohort study included 131 women (mean age 45.6 ± 7.1; BMI 28.5 ± 3.9 kg/m2), who underwent delayed unilateral DIEP flap BR. Group 1 (n=81) underwent a non-contrast MRA with tailored preprocedural preparation, positioning, and scanning. Group 2 (n=50) underwent standard contrast-enhanced CTA. RESULTS: MRA significantly reduced operative time (333.0 ± 30.4 vs. 348.9 ± 28.8 min; p = 0.003) and pedicle dissection time (35.7 ± 8.2 vs. 40.1 ± 5.9 min; p < 0.001). The mean fascial incision length was shorter in the MRA group (9.1±1.5 cm vs. 10.6±1.6 cm; p = 0.025). Diagnostic accuracy was 98.8% vs. 99.6% (p = 0.4145); sensitivity 98.3% vs. 100.0%, and PPV 97.5% vs. 98.7%, for MRA and CTA, respectively. The mean localization difference (ΔL) was 7.38±2.59 mm vs. 6.96±2.34 mm (p=0.238). Perfusion-related complication rates did not differ significantly between groups (p>0.05). No significant differences were observed in baseline perforator characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Optimized non-contrast MRA is a clinically reliable, non-inferior alternative to CTA in DIEP flap planning, with additional advantages of reduced operative and dissection times.
Reference Key
openalex_W7167594391 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors D. V. Melnikov, Elina Abdeeva, Sebastian Cotofana, Semyon I Ivanov, Nikolay A Ratushniy, Alexander Vorontsov, Victor А. Gombolevskiy
Journal Aesthetic surgery journal
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/asj/sjag140
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjag140
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.