Management of Flap Failure After Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110446
Author(s):  
Amit Walia ◽  
Jake J. Lee ◽  
Ryan S. Jackson ◽  
Angela C. Hardi ◽  
Craig A. Bollig ◽  
...  

Objective To systematically review management of flap loss in head and neck construction with free tissue transfer as compared with locoregional flap or conservative management. Data Sources Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to October 2019. Review Methods Candidate articles were independently reviewed by 2 authors. Articles were considered eligible if they included adequate reporting of flap management after flap loss and outcomes for survival of reconstruction, length of hospitalization, and perioperative complications. Results A total of 429 patients had acute flap failure in the perioperative period. The overall success with a secondary free flap was 93% (95% CI, 0.89-0.97; n = 26 studies, I2 = 12.8%). There was no difference in hospitalization length after secondary reconstruction between free tissue transfer and locoregional flaps or conservative management (relative risk of hospitalization ≥2 weeks, 96%; 95% CI, 0.80-1.14; n = 3 studies, I2 = 0). The pooled relative risk of perioperative complications following free tissue transfer was 0.60 when compared with locoregional flap or conservative management (95% CI, 0.40-0.92; n = 5 studies, I2 = 0). Conclusion Salvage reconstruction with free tissue transfer has a high success rate. Second free flaps following flap failure had a similar length of hospitalization and lower overall complication rate than locoregional reconstruction or conservative management. A second free tissue transfer, when feasible, is likely a more reliable and effective procedure for salvage reconstruction.

2021 ◽  
Vol 54 (02) ◽  
pp. 118-123
Author(s):  
Rajan Arora ◽  
Kripa Shanker Mishra ◽  
Hemant T. Bhoye ◽  
Ajay Kumar Dewan ◽  
Ravi K. Singh ◽  
...  

Abstract Background There is a steep learning curve to attain a consistently good result in microvascular surgery. The venous anastomosis is a critical step in free-tissue transfer. The margin of error is less and the outcome depends on the surgeon’s skill and technique. Mechanical anastomotic coupling device (MACD) has been proven to be an effective alternative to hand-sewn (HS) technique for venous anastomosis, as it requires lesser skill. However, its feasibility of application in emerging economy countries is yet to be established. Material and Method We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients who underwent free-tissue transfer for head and neck reconstruction between July 2015 and October 2020. Based on the technique used for the venous anastomosis, the patients were divided into an HS technique and MACD group. Patient characteristics and outcomes were measured. Result A total of 1694 venous anastomoses were performed during the study period. There were 966 patients in the HS technique group and 719 in the MACD group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, sex, prior radiotherapy, prior surgery, and comorbidities. Venous thrombosis was noted in 62 (6.4%) patients in the HS technique group and 7 (0.97%) in the MACD group (p = 0.000). The mean time taken for venous anastomosis in the HS group was 17 ± 4 minutes, and in the MACD group, it was 5 ± 2 minutes (p = 0.0001). Twenty-five (2.56%) patients in the HS group and 4 (0.55%) patients in MACD group had flap loss (p = 0.001). Conclusion MACD is an effective alternative for HS technique for venous anastomosis. There is a significant reduction in anastomosis time, flap loss, and return to operation theater due to venous thrombosis. MACD reduces the surgeon’s strain, especially in a high-volume center. Prospective randomized studies including economic analysis are required to prove the cost-effectiveness of coupler devices.


Head & Neck ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (11) ◽  
pp. 2334-2339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason L. Kass ◽  
Sameer Lakha ◽  
Matthew A. Levin ◽  
Thomas Joseph ◽  
Hung-Mo Lin ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (04) ◽  
pp. 293-298
Author(s):  
Camil Correia ◽  
Weitao Wang ◽  
Aurora G. Vincent ◽  
David Chan ◽  
Yadranko Ducic

AbstractMicrovascular free tissue transfer is the standard in the complex head and neck reconstruction with success rates greater than 95%. Free tissue transfer allows for more versatility in reconstructing complex defects with better tissue match. Failures, however, do occur and subsequent free tissue transfer might not be an option due to either the patients' health or in a vessel depleted neck. In these challenging salvage scenarios, the head and neck reconstructive surgeon must turn to regional flaps for reconstruction. Here, we review multiple regional flap options for salvage head and neck reconstruction.


2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 683-693 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey J. Houlton ◽  
Scott E. Bevans ◽  
Neal D. Futran

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document