Y Ota1, A G Moore2, M E Spector3, K Casper3, C Stucken3, K Malloy3, R Lobo1, A Baba1, A Srinivasan4. 1. From the Division of Neuroradiology (Y.O., R.L., A.B., A.S.). 2. Department of Radiology (A.G.M.), Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan. 3. Department of Radiology, and Department of Otolaryngology (M.E.S., K.C., C.S., K.M.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. From the Division of Neuroradiology (Y.O., R.L., A.B., A.S.) ashoks@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Free flap reconstruction in patients with head and neck cancer carries a risk of postoperative complications, and radiologic predictive factors have been limited. The aim of this study was to assess the factors that predict free flap reconstruction failure using CT and MR perfusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-center prospective study included 24 patients (mean age, 62.7 [SD, 9.0] years; 16 men) who had free flap reconstruction from January 2016 to May 2018. CT perfusion and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging with conventional CT and MR imaging were performed between 2 and 4 days after the free flap surgery, and the wound assessments within 14 days after the surgery were conducted by the surgical team. The parameters of CT perfusion and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging with conventional imaging findings and patient demographics were compared between the patients with successful free flap reconstruction and those with wound failure as appropriate. P < .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: There were 19 patients with successful free flap reconstruction and no wound complications (mean age, 63.9 [SD, 9.5] years; 14 men), while 5 patients had wound failure (mean age, 58.0 [SD, 5.7] years; 2 men). Blood flow, blood volume, MTT, and time maximum intensity projection (P = .007, .007, .015, and .004, respectively) in CT perfusion, and fractional plasma volume, volume transfer constant, peak enhancement, and time to maximum enhancement (P = .006, .039, .004, and .04, respectively) in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging were significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: CT perfusion and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging are both promising imaging techniques to predict wound complications after head and neck free flap reconstruction.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Free flap reconstruction in patients with head and neck cancer carries a risk of postoperative complications, and radiologic predictive factors have been limited. The aim of this study was to assess the factors that predict free flap reconstruction failure using CT and MR perfusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-center prospective study included 24 patients (mean age, 62.7 [SD, 9.0] years; 16 men) who had free flap reconstruction from January 2016 to May 2018. CT perfusion and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging with conventional CT and MR imaging were performed between 2 and 4 days after the free flap surgery, and the wound assessments within 14 days after the surgery were conducted by the surgical team. The parameters of CT perfusion and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging with conventional imaging findings and patient demographics were compared between the patients with successful free flap reconstruction and those with wound failure as appropriate. P < .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: There were 19 patients with successful free flap reconstruction and no wound complications (mean age, 63.9 [SD, 9.5] years; 14 men), while 5 patients had wound failure (mean age, 58.0 [SD, 5.7] years; 2 men). Blood flow, blood volume, MTT, and time maximum intensity projection (P = .007, .007, .015, and .004, respectively) in CT perfusion, and fractional plasma volume, volume transfer constant, peak enhancement, and time to maximum enhancement (P = .006, .039, .004, and .04, respectively) in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging were significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: CT perfusion and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging are both promising imaging techniques to predict wound complications after head and neck free flap reconstruction.
Authors: André Lopes Carvalho; Inês Nobuko Nishimoto; Joseph A Califano; Luiz Paulo Kowalski Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2005-05-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Y Ota; E Liao; A A Capizzano; A Baba; R Kurokawa; M Kurokawa; A Srinivasan Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-08-11 Impact factor: 4.966