Introduction: The introduction of pedicled chest wall perforator flaps (CWPF) in breast surgery, increased the options for
oncoplastic volume replacement procedures, however, the literature is scarce on nonblind nonrandomized interventional
studies comparing intercostal artery perforator (ICAP) flaps versus lateral thoracic artery perforator (LTAP) flaps in
Partial breast reconstruction. This research was designed to assess the ICAP flaps versus the LTAP flaps in partial
breast reconstruction in small and medium-sized breast women, in terms of aesthetic outcomes, patient satisfaction, and
perioperative complications.
Patients and Methods: This study was a nonblind nonrandomized interventional study, conducted on 34 female cases
with early breast cancer, who underwent conservative breast surgery and partial reconstruction, either by the ICAP flaps
or the LTAP flap.
Results: In this study, 34 cases were allocated to 20 patients in the ICAP flaps group, and 14 cases in the LTAP flaps
group. The mean total follow-up period was 33.10±11.96 versus 12.15±10.92, P less than 0.001*. The average age was
40.60±8.62 versus 43.07±8.01, and the average BMI was 32.19±6.80 versus 33.74±4.60 for the ICAPs versus LTAP
groups, respectively. The most common complications encountered were marked seroma, experienced by 5 cases in the
two groups without statistically significant difference. Overall, the aesthetic outcomes were good to excellent in over 90%
of the cases in the two groups without statistically significant difference, P=0.608. Most of the cases were very satisfied
with the aesthetic outcomes (n=19, 95.0%) versus (n=12, 85.7%) for the ICAP versus the LTAP flaps, respectively without
statistically significant differences, P=0.455.
Conclusion: The ICAP and the LTAP flaps are both versatile, risk-free surgical techniques, associated with low
complications rate, very good to excellent aesthetic outcomes, and a high patient satisfaction rate.