Giuseppe Di Taranto1,2, Shih-Heng Chen3, Rossella Elia1,4, Ngamcherd Sitpahul1,5, Jeffrey C Y Chan1, Luigi Losco6, Emanuele Cigna6, Diego Ribuffo2, Hung-Chi Chen1. 1. Department of Plastic Surgery, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan. 2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Sapienza University of Rome, Umberto I University Hospital, Rome, Italy. 3. Department of Plastic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 4. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, University of Bari, Bari, Italy. 5. Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Department of Plastic and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 6. Dipartimento di Ricerca Traslazionale e delle Nuove Tecnologie in Medicina e Chirurgia, Università degli Studi di Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interposition vein grafts (IVG) and vascular bridge flaps (VBF) have been exploited as vascular conduit in challenging head and neck reconstructions. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on 6025 flaps. The effect of patients' characteristics and length of IVG on flap compromise and loss were analyzed. Comparison between IVG and VBF was performed. RESULTS: The flap compromise and loss rates for the overall group were 8.2% and 3.2%, respectively. An IVG was used in 309 free flaps. The average length of the vein grafts was 6.9 ± 4.2 cm. An unplanned return to the operation room occurred in 32 cases (10.4%) and failure of the flap in 12 patients (3.9%). Binary logistic regression found a significant association between flap compromise and loss rates and length of IVG, hypertension, prior radiation, and neck dissection. In the multiple regression model, length of IVG and prior radiation significantly influenced the outcomes. Thirty-nine patients underwent reconstruction with a long IVG (>10 cm). Twenty-six patients underwent surgical reconstruction with radial forearm flap as a VBF. The rate of flap compromise was higher in the group with a long IVG (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: In head and neck free flap reconstruction, the length of IVGs and history of radiotherapy are associated with flap compromise and loss. In case of long distance between the pedicle and the recipient site, the use of a VBF bridge should be considered as a safe alternative.
BACKGROUND: Interposition vein grafts (IVG) and vascular bridge flaps (VBF) have been exploited as vascular conduit in challenging head and neck reconstructions. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on 6025 flaps. The effect of patients' characteristics and length of IVG on flap compromise and loss were analyzed. Comparison between IVG and VBF was performed. RESULTS: The flap compromise and loss rates for the overall group were 8.2% and 3.2%, respectively. An IVG was used in 309 free flaps. The average length of the vein grafts was 6.9 ± 4.2 cm. An unplanned return to the operation room occurred in 32 cases (10.4%) and failure of the flap in 12 patients (3.9%). Binary logistic regression found a significant association between flap compromise and loss rates and length of IVG, hypertension, prior radiation, and neck dissection. In the multiple regression model, length of IVG and prior radiation significantly influenced the outcomes. Thirty-nine patients underwent reconstruction with a long IVG (>10 cm). Twenty-six patients underwent surgical reconstruction with radial forearm flap as a VBF. The rate of flap compromise was higher in the group with a long IVG (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: In head and neck free flap reconstruction, the length of IVGs and history of radiotherapy are associated with flap compromise and loss. In case of long distance between the pedicle and the recipient site, the use of a VBF bridge should be considered as a safe alternative.
Authors: Hannah C Langdell; Ronnie L Shammas; Andrew Atia; Edward I Chang; Evan Matros; Brett T Phillips Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Julius Moratin; Jan Mrosek; Dominik Horn; Karl Metzger; Oliver Ristow; Sven Zittel; Michael Engel; Kolja Freier; Juergen Hoffmann; Christian Freudlsperger Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Andreas M Fichter; Thomas Mücke; Lucas M Ritschl; Marie-Kristin Hofmann; Constantin T Wolff; Leonard H Schmidt; Klaus-Dietrich Wolff Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 4.379