| Literature DB >> 31237884 |
Noémie Girard1, Myriam Delomenie1, Caroline Malhaire2, Delphine Sebbag2, Aurélie Roulot1, Anne Sabaila1, Benoît Couturaud3, Jean-Guillaume Feron1, Fabien Reyal1,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perfusion-related complications remain the most common concern in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Indocyanine green-based fluorescence angiography can be used for the real-time intra operative assessment of flap perfusion. The SPY Elite system is the most widely used device in this setting. The main objective was to describe the use of SPY-Q proprietary software to perform qualitative and quantitative analysis of flap perfusion.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31237884 PMCID: PMC6592538 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217698
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Flap perfusion analyzed with the “Autoview” function.
Fig 1A: the bright zone on the left is the flap zone where fluorescence is the higher and on which perfusion parameters are estimated. The red curve is the curve of fluorescence across the time. Fig 1B: Definition of the four regions of interest (ROI). Yellow-colored zones are used to calculate perfusion parameters.
Study population.
| Clinical characteristic | n = 40 |
|---|---|
| Age (median, min-max) | 53 (42–59) |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) (median, min-max) | 25.3 (22.3–28.1) |
| Overweight (BMI > 25 kg/m2) | 21 (52.5%) |
| Hypertension | 6 (14.6%) |
| Dyslipidemia | 4 (10%) |
| Diabetes mellitus | 2 (5%) |
| Smoking stopped < 3 years | 5 (12.5%) |
| At least one cardiovascular risk factor | 24 (60%) |
| Breast cancer treatment | |
| Hormone therapy | 24 (60%) |
| Tamoxifen | 19 |
| Aromatase inhibitor | 5 |
| Chemotherapy | 27 (68%) |
| Radiotherapy | 27 (68%) |
| Surgery | |
| Secondary reconstruction | 30 (75%) |
| Surgical difficulties | 4 (10%) |
| Reoperation | 5 (12.5%) |
| Venous thrombosis | 2 |
| Arterial thrombosis | 1 |
| Flap necrosis | 1 |
| Hemorrhage | 1 |
| Prolonged local care | 10 (25%) |
| Duration of local care (days, median, min-max) | 61 (21–150) |
Fig 2Flap perfusion patterns.
Fig 2A: Perfusion pattern type «1». Fig 2B: Perfusion pattern type «2». Fig 2C: Perfusion pattern type «3». Dynamic color analysis representing fluorescence of the flap over time. Red zone is the best perfused one and blue one, the less perfused one.
Fig 3Flap zones and quantitative perfusion parameters.
This boxplot figure represents distributions of ingress (above) and ingress rate (below) calculated on the four flap zones as defined above. When quantitatively assessed, perfusion is the higher in ROI 2 (zone I) and the lower in ROI 4 (zone IV).
Fig 4Flap perfusion pattern and main perforator location.
Circled symbol represents the mean location of perforator emergence for each perfusion pattern (as defined above).
Univariate analysis between flap perfusion parameters and anatomical characteristics of the main perforator.
| Flap perfusion pattern | Whole-flap perfusion | Hartrampf zone I perfusion | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | 1 (n = 14) | 2 (n = 16) | 3 (n = 10) | Ingress (APU) | Ingress rate (APU/s) | Ingress (APU) | Ingress rate (APU/s) | |||||
| 1 (2%) | 1 (7%) | 0 | 0 | 127 | 17.1 | 95 | 6.1 | |||||
| 10 (25%) | 5 (36%) | 3 (19%) | 2 (20%) | 136 | 11.5 | 95 | 7.04 | |||||
| 29 (73%) | 8 (57%) | 13 (81%) | 8 (80%) | 126 | 9.85 | 80 | 5.95 | |||||
| 6 (15%) | 1 (7%) | 4 (25%) | 1 (10%) | 104 | 8.23 | 53.5 | 3.38 | |||||
| 33 (83%) | 13 (93%) | 12 (75%) | 8 (80%) | 132 | 10.8 | 89.2 | 6.72 | |||||
| 1 (2%) | 0 | 0 | 1 (10%) | 152 | 10.2 | 97 | 6.9 | |||||
| 1 (2%) | 0 | 0 | 1 (11%) | 152 | 10.2 | 97 | 6.9 | |||||
| 5 (13%) | 3 (23%) | 2 (17%) | 0 | 128 | 12.2 | 85 | 6.86 | |||||
| 21 (53%) | 10 (77%) | 6 (50%) | 5 (56%) | 132 | 9.68 | 90.7 | 5.96 | |||||
| 7 (32%) | 0 | 4 (33%) | 3 (33%) | 148 | 13.4 | 87.9 | 8.90 | |||||
Fig 5Flap perfusion and tamoxifen.
Fig 5A: Flap perfusion assessed by ingress and tamoxifen. Fig 5B: Flap perfusion assessed by ingress rate and tamoxifen.
Univariate analysis of the relationship between flap perfusion parameters and patients’ clinical characteristics.
| Ingress | Ingress rate (APU/s) | Ingress zone I | Ingress Rate zone I (APU/s) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | ||||||||
| < 60 years | 116 | 8.74 | 68.8 | 3.74 | ||||
| > 60 years | 165 | 15.5 | 130 | 13.7 | ||||
| Overweight | ||||||||
| No | 133 | 10.9 | 86.9 | 5.16 | ||||
| Yes | 124 | 10.0 | 86.6 | 7.19 | ||||
| Smoking status | ||||||||
| Never | 128 | 10.4 | 80.4 | 6.43 | ||||
| Ancient, stopped > 3 years | 134 | 10.5 | 110 | 4.80 | ||||
| Hypertension | ||||||||
| No | 124 | 9.23 | 75.4 | 4.26 | ||||
| Yes | 156 | 17.3 | 133 | 17.4 | ||||
| Dyslipidemia | ||||||||
| No | 125 | 9.49 | 79.5 | 4.97 | ||||
| Yes | 162 | 19.0 | 125 | 17.5 | ||||
| Diabetes mellitus | ||||||||
| No | 133 | 10.9 | 86.5 | 6.32 | ||||
| Yes | 45.5 | 2.20 | 37.5 | 4.50 | ||||
| Hormone therapy | ||||||||
| None or aromatase inhibitors | 141 | 11.7 | 96.3 | 8.57 | ||||
| Tamoxifen | 114 | 9.00 | 70.5 | 3.63 | ||||
| Radiotherapy | ||||||||
| No | 128 | 11.4 | 93.8 | 8.92 | ||||
| Yes | 129 | 10.0 | 79.4 | 4.93 | ||||
| Chemotherapy | ||||||||
| No | 127 | 11.0 | 92.1 | 8.47 | ||||
| Yes | 129 | 10.2 | 80.2 | 5.14 |