| Literature DB >> 35242985 |
M Thakkar1, A Rose2, B Bednarz3.
Abstract
The aim of this review was to identify studies that used thromboelastography (TEG) or rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) in microsurgical free flap reconstruction and analyse whether it is a useful adjunct at predicting and identifying thrombotic complications. A search was conducted using the MEDLINE database using the keywords "thromboelastogram", "TEG", "thromboelastography", "free flaps" and "free tissue transfer" using a two-component search with the Boolean operators "OR" and "AND". Eight studies were retrieved using the search criteria. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, and a further study was found citing several articles from the initial search. Combined, there were 528 patients who underwent 600 free flaps. A total of 10.3% (62) arterial and venous thromboses were reported in the studies, and the combined flap failure rate was 5.2% (26). A total of 67% (4/6) of the studies supported the use of TEG as a predictive tool to detect thromboses, including three retrospective case series and one prospective cohort, which were all statistically significant. There is low-quality evidence (level IV) that a pre-operative TEG and functional fibrinogen to platelet ratio of ≥42 can identify patients at risk of adverse post-operative thrombotic events following free flap surgery; however, further validation is required. Higher quality, standardised prospective or randomised control trials are required to further evaluate the predictive value of TEG. As a pre-operative screening tool, TEG can help to detect pathological changes in coagulation, aid in the transfusion of blood products, target anticoagulation therapy and predict possible adverse events aiding to further reduce patient morbidity.Entities:
Keywords: Free flaps; Free tissue transfer; Microsurgical reconstruction; ROTEM; TEG; Thromboelastography; Thromboelastometry
Year: 2022 PMID: 35242985 PMCID: PMC8857410 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpra.2021.12.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JPRAS Open ISSN: 2352-5878
Population, overall outcome, study type and attributed level of evidence
| Study | Country | Population | Outcome | Study type | Level of evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parker et al. 2012 | UK | 29 patients undergoing free tissue transfer for head and neck pathology | A functional fibrinogen to platelet ratio above 42% as measured by TEG may be useful in identifying patients likely to develop thrombotic complication | Retrospective case series | 4 |
| Murphy et al. 2013 | UK | Single patient with myelodysplastic syndrome undergoing extensive periorbital reconstruction | The use of TEG allows for targeted clotting supplementation which may reduce over-correction of platelet and/or clotting factor deficiencies and reduce free flap complications | Case report | 5 |
| Kolbenschlag et al. 2014 | Germany | 181 consecutive patients undergoing free flap surgery | ROTEM seems to be able to identify patients that are prone to thrombotic complications and might be used as a screening tool | Retrospective case series | 4 |
| Wikner et al. 2015 | Germany | 35 patients undergoing free flap surgery | The utilisation of thromboelastometry allows for assessment of the anticoagulation needs of individual patients undergoing free flap surgery | Prospective cohort | 3 |
| Zavlin et al. 2018 | USA | 2 patients with factor V Leiden undergoing DIEP reconstruction | TEG was used in the first 72 hours to monitor patient's hypercoagulability and prevent flap thrombosis | Case report | 5 |
| Zavlin et al. 2018 | USA | 100 consecutive patients undergoing abdominal free flap reconstruction (172 flaps) | TEG is a useful adjunct for monitoring coagulation status in microsurgical breast reconstruction | Retrospective case series | 4 |
| Ekin et al. 2019 | Turkey | 77 patients undergoing free flap reconstruction | There was no significant relationship between pre-operative and post-operative TEG and flap complications and loss | Retrospective case series | 4 |
| Vanags et al. 2020 | Latvia | 103 consecutive adult patients with traumatic injuries undergoing free flap surgery | In the late surgery group, thromboelastometry supports the detection of hypercoagulability and predicts free flap thrombosis risk | Prospective cohort | 3 |
Mean age, gender distribution, flap types, flap indications, complications and flap failure rate reported in the studies
| Study | Mean age | Gender | Flap types | Trauma/malignancy/ infection | Flap complications | Flap failure rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parker et al. 2012 | 58 | 17M, 12F | Radial forearm, fibula, LD, groin, scapular | 26 malignancy, 3 benign | Arterial thromboses 2, venous thromboses 3 | 13.8% (4) |
| Murphy et al. 2013 | 68 | 1M | ALT | Infection | Nil | nil |
| Kolbenschlag et al. 2014 | 50.2 | 108M, 73F | ALT, LD, DIEP, parascapular, gracilis, fibula, lateral arm, S-GAP | 108 trauma, 45 malignancy, 12 infection, 9 burns, 7 chronic ulcers | 28 thromboses, 15 venous, 6 arterial, 7 arterial and venous | 7.7% (14) |
| Wikner et al. 2015 | 61.8 | 20M, 15F | Radial, fibula, ALT, scapular, ulnar | 27 malignancy, 15 chronic skin ulcers | 7 bleeding events, 5 thrombotic events | 8.6% (3) |
| Zavlin et al. 2018 | 48.5 | 2F | DIEP | Abdominal breast reconstruction | Nil | Nil |
| Zavlin et al. 2018 | 48.2 | 100F | DIEP, SIEA | Abdominal breast reconstruction | 1 arterial thrombosis, 2 venous thromboses, 1.7% bleeding, 4.7% wound infection | 1.2% (2) |
| Ekin et al. 2019 | 49.3 | 40M, 37F | DIEP, fibula, ALT, radial forearm, LD | Not stated (elective free flaps) | 5.2% partial necrosis, 6.5% thromboses (5), 10.4% hematoma, 7.8% wound dehiscence, (1.3%) seroma | 3.9% (3) |
| Vanags et al. 2020 | 40.4 | 90M, 13F | Scapular, parascapular, ALT, LD, Fibula | Traumatic injuries | 16 thromboses within first 24 hours | Not reported |
Aims, type of assay, measurement protocol and key results extracted from each study (case reports excluded)
| Study | Aim | TEG or ROTEM | Protocol | Key results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parker et al. 2012 | To determine if functional fibrinogen to platelet ratio using TEG could pre-operatively identify patients at risk of developing thrombotic complications | TEG | TEG analysis and calculation of functional fibrinogen to platelet ratio at induction of anaesthesia | The mean functional fibrinogen to platelet ratio was significantly higher in the surgery group compared with healthy volunteers Of the 29 patients studied, 31% (n=9) had some form of thrombotic event, with all but one patient having a functional fibrinogen to platelet ratio >42% (mean 47% ±7%) |
| Kolbenschlag et al. 2014 | To assess the diagnostic value of rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) | ROTEM | Pre-operative day, standard laboratory work-up, including a coagulation screening and RTE measurement | Pre-operatively, 36.5% of patients had a hypercoagulable ROTEM (higher than physiological ROTEM values) A total of 28 primary thromboses of the microvascular pedicle occurred, 11 of these occurred in-patients with a hypercoagulable state Both a hypercoagulable ROTEM assay and a functional fibrinogen to platelet ratio (FPR) of >43 were significant predictors of thrombotic flap loss when performing multivariate binary logistic regression, co-factoring for age, sex and comorbidities (p=0.036 and 0.003, respectively) |
| Wikner et al. 2015 | To evaluate the systematic use of thromboelastometry in the peri-operative course in cranio-maxillofacial free-flap patients in comparison with standard testing and prove its value prospectively, outlining alterations for clinical applicability in hospitals using antithrombotic agents | ROTEM | Blood samples were obtained at three defined time points: | Neither standard testing nor ROTEM were capable of predicting adverse events such as thrombosis, bleeding or flap loss (p > 0.05) |
| Zavlin et al. 2018 | To investigate if there is a value of TEG in identifying patients at risk for microvascular thrombosis or bleeding | TEG | TEG analysis was carried out at intervals, including pre-operative (baseline), intra-operatively, after surgery on post-operative day 1 (POD1) and 2 (POD2) | Classical coagulation studies, such as thrombocyte levels, aPTT and PT failed to identify patients with thrombosis Patients with thromboses had significantly larger TEG-G boosts after surgery compared with the control cohort (p=0.049) Sharp increases of the TEG-G value right after surgery could therefore be a predictor of flap failure |
| Ekin et al. 2019 | To evaluate the coagulation status of elective free flap reconstructive surgery patients with conventional tests and TEG and to investigate the effect of the coagulation status on flap complications and flap success | TEG | Pre-operative and post-operative blood tests (haemogram and standard coagulation tests) and TEG results were recorded | Laboratory test results revealed no statistical correlation between flap complications and flap loss with pre-operative and post-operative TEG |
| Vanags et al. 2020 | To assess the role of ROTEM as a means of early identification of hypercoagulability in trauma patients prone to develop free flap thrombosis | ROTEM | 36 patients with recent trauma underwent surgery within 30 days (ES group) were compared with 67 trauma patients who underwent surgery later than 30 days (late surgery, LS group) after the injury | Six patients (16.7%) in the ES group and 10 (14.9%) in the LS group had free flap thrombosis (not significant (NS)) Hypercoagulability occurred more frequently in the ES group (44.4%) than in the LS group (11.9%; p < 0.001), it was not associated with higher free flap thrombosis rate In LS patients, hypercoagulability increased the odds of free flap thrombosis (OR 8.83, CI 1.74–44.76; p = 0.009) A positive correlation was found between FPR ≥ 42 and free flap thrombosis rate (r = 0.362; p = 0.003) |
Outcomes of studies supporting or opposing the predictive ability of thromboelastoraphy to predict adverse thrombotic events
| Predicts adverse events | Do not predict adverse events |
|---|---|
| Parker et al. 2012 | Wikner et al. 2015 |
| Kolbenschlag et al. 2014 | Ekin et al. 2019 |
| Zavlin et al. 2018 | |
| Vanags et al. 2020 |
denotes statistical significance P<0.05.
The different diagnostic nomenclature for identical parameters between TEG and ROTEM
| TEG | ROTEM |
|---|---|
| R value | Clotting time (CT) |
| K value and α angle | Clot formation time (CFT) and α angle |
| Maximal amplitude (MA) | Maximum clot firmness (MCF) |
| A30 or L30 | Clot lysis |
Figure 1Normal TEG waveform