Background: This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of the selective use of the superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator (SCIP) and the superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) flap as a workhorse flap from the groin area with precise preoperative surgical planning. Methods: A total of 79 free flap reconstructions were performed in the study period; 35 SCIP free flaps and 19 SIEA free flaps were performed in the study period. Detailed preoperative surgical planning using CT angiography and color Doppler ultrasound. Detailed anatomical information of the flaps and reconstructive outcomes were evaluated. Results: Flap characteristics between SCIP free flaps and SIEA free flaps were similar. The average transverse distance of the perforator from ASIS was 15.91 cm in SCIP free flaps and 43.15 cm in SIEA free flaps. The overall flap success rate was 96.4%. Majority of the patients achieved satisfactory contour without debulking surgery. Donor site morbidity was minimal with one case of wound dehiscence. Conclusions: The selective use of the SCIP and SIEA free flap in groin area is a safe and useful technique. The surgical outcomes were reliable and similar between the SCIP and SIEA free flaps. Preoperative vascular planning using CT angiography and color Doppler ultrasound is essential for selecting the proper flap.

Women have undergone augmentation mammoplasty for decades, and if implant rupture is suspected, imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography are available. The linguine sign, keyhole sign, and noose sign are all suggestive of rupture. However, earlier-generation implants with alternative filler materials demonstrate rupture signs that differ from those of today’s better-known implant materials. A 60-year-old female patient who had undergone augmentation mammoplasty 20 years ago presented with left breast swelling and pain in the lower-outer quadrant. Ultrasonography and MRI confirmed extracapsular diffuse wall enhancement with suspected, but not apparent, discontinuity in the patient’s left breast implant. Therefore, both implants were removed. It was determined that these were Poly Implant Prothése implants. The left breast implant differed from the contralateral implant in that it contained fluctuating fluid. This could be attributed to an osmotic gradient that caused the implant to swell and weakened the elastomer shell, resulting in micro rupture without a gross tear. Patients who undergo augmentation mammoplasty should have regular follow-up examinations, even if there are no symptoms. Furthermore, clinicians should be aware that some patients who have had breast augmentation mammoplasty may experience atypical symptoms and signs if the implant ruptures.