The use of machine learning for predicating complications of free flap head and neck reconstruction.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18633-e18633
Author(s):  
Malke Asaad ◽  
Sheng-Chieh Lu ◽  
Praneeth Kambhampati ◽  
Jun Liu ◽  
Edward I Chang ◽  
...  

e18633 Background: The use of machine learning (ML) in plastic and reconstructive surgery has increased over the last decade. However, its use to predict surgical outcomes in head and neck reconstruction has not been well studied. The goal of this study is to assess the performance of ML algorithms trained to predict surgical outcomes of head and neck free flap reconstruction. Methods: Our study cohort included routinely collected data from 4000 patients who underwent free flaps for reconstruction of head and neck defects between January 2005 and December 2018. We developed and tested nine supervised ML algorithms to predict three outcomes of a.) any complication, b.) any major recipient-site complication, and c.) total flap loss. Results: In our sample, 33.7% of patients experienced any complication, 26.5% experienced a major complication at the recipient site and 1.7% experienced total flap loss. The k-nearest neighbors algorithm demonstrated the best overall performance for predicting any complication (AUROC = .61, sensitivity = .60). Regularized regression had the best performance for predicting major recipient site complication (AUROC=.68, sensitivity = .66), and decision trees were the best predictors of total flap loss (AUROC = .66, sensitivity = .50). Conclusions: We demonstrated that ML models trained using routinely collected data can make clinical useful predictions about who will experience complications. Our models correctly identified between half and two-thirds of patients who experienced post-surgical complications including total flap loss. These models can be applied to readily available clinical and perioperative data to facilitate decision making. Further performance improvements are likely possible with the inclusion of additional variables related to patient health and behavior.

2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (02) ◽  
pp. 087-094 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinglong Liu ◽  
Quan Shi ◽  
Shuo Yang ◽  
Bo Liu ◽  
Bin Guo ◽  
...  

Background Due to limited evidence, it is unclear whether postoperative anticoagulation therapy may lead to higher success rates for microvascular free-flap surgery in the head and neck. This review evaluated whether postoperative anticoagulation therapy can lead to a better result in head and neck reconstruction. Methods PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were used to search for articles on the efficacy of postoperative antithrombotic therapy in free-flap transfer during head and neck reconstruction without language restrictions in February of 2017. A random-effects model was used to estimate the relative risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The measured outcomes were flap loss, thromboembolic events, and hematoma formation. Results A total of 2,048 free-flap surgery procedures in the head and neck were analyzed. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of flap loss and thromboembolic events in the anticoagulation group compared with the nonanticoagulation group (RR = 1.25, 95% CI = 0.85–1.81, p = 0.26; and RR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.74–1.48, p = 0.79, respectively). The risk of hematoma was twice as high in the anticoagulation group than the nonanticoagulation group, which was statistically significant (RR = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.08–3.76, p = 0.03). Conclusion The findings from our meta-analysis indicate that postoperative anticoagulation therapy barely decreases the risks of flap loss and thromboembolic events in free-flap surgery in the head and neck. However, it may significantly increase the risk of hematoma formation. Considering the limitations of this meta-analysis, additional high-quality, multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings.


Head & Neck ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 38 (S1) ◽  
pp. E771-E775 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward I. Chang ◽  
Hong Zhang ◽  
Jun Liu ◽  
Peirong Yu ◽  
Roman J. Skoracki ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 139 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. P125-P126
Author(s):  
Barrie Yau-Boon Tan ◽  
Mark Khoo

Objectives To study the use, complication rate, and efficacy of pedicled local regional flaps for head and neck reconstruction, and to compare these results with those of microvascular free flap reconstruction. Methods Retrospective analysis of all head and neck oncologic resections requiring flap reconstruction in a tertiary head and neck surgery centre over a 6-year period from 2001–2007. Results In total, 77 operations with flap reconstruction were performed. 44 resections employed pedicled locoregional flaps, comprising 33 pectoralis major, 3 trapezius, 3 cervical rotation, 1 deltopectoral, 1 temporalis muscle, 2 nasolabial, 1 cheek rotation, and 2 bilobed rotation flaps. 2 patients had a combination of 2 regional flaps. There was 1 flap failure. Minor complications occurred in 25% of patients comprising wound seromas (3), wound dehiscence (6), fibrotic band formation (1) and pharyngocutaneous fistula (1). 33 resections employed free flap microvascular reconstructions, comprising 22 free radial forearm, 7 free rectus abdominis, 1 free jejunal, 1 free fibular, and 2 anterolateral thigh flaps. There was 1 flap failure. Minor complications occurred in 33% of patients, comprising donor site wound dehiscence (4), recipient site wound dehiscence or seroma (4), plate extrusion (1), abscess and wound breakdown (2). Conclusions Despite the ready access to free flap reconstruction today, pedicled flaps, especially the pectoralis major flap, remain a major workhorse in head and neck reconstruction. They are hardy, reliable, cost-effective, and can be done in a short operative time. Moreover, for several regions, the functional outcome is no worse than free flap reconstruction.


2017 ◽  
Vol 02 (02) ◽  
pp. e140-e144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shunjiro Yagi ◽  
Yoshiko Suyama ◽  
Kohei Fukuoka ◽  
Maki Morita ◽  
Miki Kambe ◽  
...  

Background Even after careful microanastomosis, microsurgeons sometimes encounter unexpected twisting, kinking, and destabilizing mechanical forces. In these cases, a small fat graft is a useful technique for stabilizing the pedicle geometry in free flap transfer. However, few reports have provided the details with an analysis of fat graft use. The use of fat grafts for free flap transfer in head and neck reconstruction was reviewed. Materials and Methods This was a retrospective review of 157 patients (116 men, 41 women; average ± SD age: 64 ± 13.1 years) who had undergone head and neck reconstruction with free flap transfer between 2010 and 2016. We used a fat graft to stabilize pedicle geometry to prevent kinking and other problems. Postoperative thrombosis formation and the use of a fat graft at the pedicle depending on recipient vessel selection and reconstructed site were examined. Results In 23 patients (14.6%), fat grafting was performed to correct pedicle geometry. A fat graft was used at the arterial anastomosis in 13 patients and at the venous anastomosis in 10. There were no significant differences in postoperative thrombosis formation depending on the use of a fat graft. However, fat grafts were more likely to be performed with the superior thyroid artery as a recipient artery and in tongue and/or oral cavity reconstruction. Conclusion A fat graft is a reliable and easy procedure to correct pedicle geometry. However, reconstructive surgeons should consider the use of a fat graft based on the selection of the recipient vessels and the recipient site.


Microsurgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chih‐Sheng Lai ◽  
Ching‐Hui Shen ◽  
Yi‐Ting Chang ◽  
Shih‐An Liu ◽  
Chen‐Te Lu ◽  
...  

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.


Microsurgery ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masaki Fujioka ◽  
Kana Masuda ◽  
Yoshinobu Imamura

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 577-583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurélie Parsemain ◽  
Pierre Philouze ◽  
Pierre Pradat ◽  
Philippe Ceruse ◽  
Carine Fuchsmann

2012 ◽  
Vol 70 (4) ◽  
pp. 992-996 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tao Zhang ◽  
Joshua Lubek ◽  
Andrew Salama ◽  
John Caccamese ◽  
Domenick Coletti ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document