Anastomotic Technique and Preoperative Imaging in Microsurgical Lower-Extremity Reconstruction: A Single-Surgeon Experience.

Autor:	Carney MJ; From the Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University, New Haven, CT., Samra F; Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA., Momeni A; Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA., Bauder AR; Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA., Weissler JM; Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA., Kovach SJ
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Annals of plastic surgery [Ann Plast Surg] 2020 Apr; Vol. 84 (4), pp. 425-430.
DOI:	10.1097/SAP.0000000000002227
Abstrakt:	Background: The need for preoperative imaging as well as anastomotic technique (ie, end-to-side [ETS] vs end-to-end [ETE]) are areas of controversy in microsurgical lower-extremity reconstruction. The objective of this study was to (1) investigate whether preoperative imaging is mandatory and (2) to elicit if the type of anastomosis impacts clinical outcomes. Methods: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent microvascular lower-extremity reconstruction between 2007 and 2015 by a single surgeon was performed. Patients were categorized into groups based on anastomotic technique, that is, ETE versus ETS anastomosis. Patients in the ETE group were further subclassified into those who had preoperative imaging (computed tomography angiography [CTA]+) versus those who did not (CTA-). Parameters of interest included flap type, thrombosis rate, flap loss, length of stay (LOS), return to ambulation, and rate of secondary amputation. Two-sided statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test and Fisher exact test. Results: One hundred twenty-eight patients were analyzed: ETE (n = 40) and ETS (n = 88). Mean follow-up for both groups was 20 ± 19 months. Anterolateral thigh flaps were most commonly performed (71%). Overall flap loss rate was 3.1% without any significant differences noted with respect to thrombosis (arterial, P = 0.09; venous, P = 0.56), flap loss (P = 0.33), LOS (P = 0.28), amputation (P = 1.00), or return to ambulation (P = 0.77). Furthermore, the availability of preoperative imaging (CTA+: N = 11 vs CTA-: N = 29) did not impact rates of thrombosis (arterial, P = 0.29; venous, P = 0.31), flap loss (P = 1.00), LOS (P = 0.26), or return to mobility (P = 0.62). Conclusions: In light of similar reconstructive outcomes, we prefer to preserve distal extremity perfusion via ETS anastomoses whenever possible. Furthermore, preoperative vascular imaging angiography might not be necessary in patients with palpable pedal pulses on preoperative examination. An actionable algorithm for determining ETS versus ETE anastomosis in lower-extremity reconstruction is presented.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu