Cargando…
Postoperative free flap monitoring in reconstructive surgery—man or machine?
Free tissue transfer is widely used for the reconstruction of complex tissue defects. The survival of free flaps depends on the patency and integrity of the microvascular anastomosis. Accordingly, the early detection of vascular comprise and prompt intervention are indispensable to increase flap sur...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9992807/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36911625 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2023.1130566 |
_version_ | 1784902398755471360 |
---|---|
author | Knoedler, Samuel Hoch, Cosima C. Huelsboemer, Lioba Knoedler, Leonard Stögner, Viola A. Pomahac, Bohdan Kauke-Navarro, Martin Colen, David |
author_facet | Knoedler, Samuel Hoch, Cosima C. Huelsboemer, Lioba Knoedler, Leonard Stögner, Viola A. Pomahac, Bohdan Kauke-Navarro, Martin Colen, David |
author_sort | Knoedler, Samuel |
collection | PubMed |
description | Free tissue transfer is widely used for the reconstruction of complex tissue defects. The survival of free flaps depends on the patency and integrity of the microvascular anastomosis. Accordingly, the early detection of vascular comprise and prompt intervention are indispensable to increase flap survival rates. Such monitoring strategies are commonly integrated into the perioperative algorithm, with clinical examination still being considered the gold standard for routine free flap monitoring. Despite its widespread acceptance as state of the art, the clinical examination also has its pitfalls, such as the limited applicability in buried flaps and the risk of poor interrater agreement due to inconsistent flap (failure) appearances. To compensate for these shortcomings, a plethora of alternative monitoring tools have been proposed in recent years, each of them with inherent strengths and limitations. Given the ongoing demographic change, the number of older patients requiring free flap reconstruction, e.g., after cancer resection, is rising. Yet, age-related morphologic changes may complicate the free flap evaluation in elderly patients and delay the prompt detection of clinical signs of flap compromise. In this review, we provide an overview of currently available and employed methods for free flap monitoring, with a special focus on elderly patients and how senescence may impact standard free flap monitoring strategies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9992807 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-99928072023-03-09 Postoperative free flap monitoring in reconstructive surgery—man or machine? Knoedler, Samuel Hoch, Cosima C. Huelsboemer, Lioba Knoedler, Leonard Stögner, Viola A. Pomahac, Bohdan Kauke-Navarro, Martin Colen, David Front Surg Surgery Free tissue transfer is widely used for the reconstruction of complex tissue defects. The survival of free flaps depends on the patency and integrity of the microvascular anastomosis. Accordingly, the early detection of vascular comprise and prompt intervention are indispensable to increase flap survival rates. Such monitoring strategies are commonly integrated into the perioperative algorithm, with clinical examination still being considered the gold standard for routine free flap monitoring. Despite its widespread acceptance as state of the art, the clinical examination also has its pitfalls, such as the limited applicability in buried flaps and the risk of poor interrater agreement due to inconsistent flap (failure) appearances. To compensate for these shortcomings, a plethora of alternative monitoring tools have been proposed in recent years, each of them with inherent strengths and limitations. Given the ongoing demographic change, the number of older patients requiring free flap reconstruction, e.g., after cancer resection, is rising. Yet, age-related morphologic changes may complicate the free flap evaluation in elderly patients and delay the prompt detection of clinical signs of flap compromise. In this review, we provide an overview of currently available and employed methods for free flap monitoring, with a special focus on elderly patients and how senescence may impact standard free flap monitoring strategies. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-02-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9992807/ /pubmed/36911625 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2023.1130566 Text en © 2023 Knoedler, Hoch, Huelsboemer, Knoedler, Stögner, Pomahac, Kauke-Navarro and Colen. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Surgery Knoedler, Samuel Hoch, Cosima C. Huelsboemer, Lioba Knoedler, Leonard Stögner, Viola A. Pomahac, Bohdan Kauke-Navarro, Martin Colen, David Postoperative free flap monitoring in reconstructive surgery—man or machine? |
title | Postoperative free flap monitoring in reconstructive surgery—man or machine? |
title_full | Postoperative free flap monitoring in reconstructive surgery—man or machine? |
title_fullStr | Postoperative free flap monitoring in reconstructive surgery—man or machine? |
title_full_unstemmed | Postoperative free flap monitoring in reconstructive surgery—man or machine? |
title_short | Postoperative free flap monitoring in reconstructive surgery—man or machine? |
title_sort | postoperative free flap monitoring in reconstructive surgery—man or machine? |
topic | Surgery |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9992807/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36911625 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2023.1130566 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT knoedlersamuel postoperativefreeflapmonitoringinreconstructivesurgerymanormachine AT hochcosimac postoperativefreeflapmonitoringinreconstructivesurgerymanormachine AT huelsboemerlioba postoperativefreeflapmonitoringinreconstructivesurgerymanormachine AT knoedlerleonard postoperativefreeflapmonitoringinreconstructivesurgerymanormachine AT stognerviolaa postoperativefreeflapmonitoringinreconstructivesurgerymanormachine AT pomahacbohdan postoperativefreeflapmonitoringinreconstructivesurgerymanormachine AT kaukenavarromartin postoperativefreeflapmonitoringinreconstructivesurgerymanormachine AT colendavid postoperativefreeflapmonitoringinreconstructivesurgerymanormachine |