he deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap remains the most common flap for autologous breast reconstruction, but it is not always the ideal option. In those instances, there are other secondary options, such as profunda artery perforator, 1,2 lateral thigh perforator, 3 or gluteal artery perforator (superior and inferior) flaps. 4 Recently, the lumbar artery perforator (LAP) flap has emerged as an excellent alternative option for breast reconstruction. 5 Even in patients with low body mass index (BMI), where there is a paucity of tissue and skin laxity in most anatomic regions, the lumbar area and LAP flap can often provide adequate volume and structure for total autologous tissue breast reconstruction. 6 Despite the multiple advantages of the LAP flap, there are concerns that prevent its common adoption. 7 First, the LAP flap is technically Background: The lumbar artery perforator (LAP) flap has emerged as an excellent option for breast reconstruction, but its steep learning curve makes it less approachable. Furthermore, length of the operation, flap ischemia time, need for composite vascular grafts, complex microsurgery, multiple position changes, and general concern for safety has led experienced surgeons to stage bilateral reconstructions. In the authors' experience, simultaneous bilateral LAP flaps are feasible, but overall perioperative safety has not been fully explored. Methods: Thirty-one patients (62 flaps) underwent simultaneous bilateral LAP flaps and were included in the study (excluding stacked four-flaps and unilateral flaps). Patients underwent two position changes in the operating room: supine to prone and then supine again. A retrospective review of patient demographics, intraoperative details, and complications was performed.
Results:The overall flap success rate was 96.8%. Five flaps were compromised postoperatively. The intraoperative anastomotic revision rate was 24.1% per flap (4.3% per anastomosis). The significant complication rate was 22.6%. The number of sustained hypothermic episodes and hypotensive episodes correlated with intraoperative arterial thrombosis (P < 0.05). The number of hypotensive episodes and increased intraoperative fluid correlated with flap compromise (P < 0.05). High body mass index correlated with overall complications (P < 0.05). The presence of diabetes correlated with intraoperative arterial thrombosis (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Simultaneous bilateral LAP flaps can be performed safely with an experienced and trained microsurgical team. Hypothermia and hypotension negatively affect the initial anastomotic success. In this complex operation, a coordinated approach between the anesthesia and nursing team is paramount for patient safety.