scholarly journals A comparison of the Cook-Swartz Doppler with conventional clinical methods for free flap monitoring: A systematic review and a meta-analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. 109-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhao-Feng Han ◽  
Li-Li Guo ◽  
Lin-Bo Liu ◽  
Qian Li ◽  
Jian Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Free Flap ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Free Flap Monitoring ◽  
Clinical Methods ◽  
Flap Monitoring

scholarly journals 507 Quantifying the Limitations of Clinical and Technology-Based Flap Monitoring Strategies Using A Systematic Recurrent Themes Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
R Kwasnicki ◽  
A Noakes ◽  
N Banhidy ◽  
S Hettiaratchy
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Free Flap ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Discussion Section ◽  
Monitoring Techniques ◽  
Free Flap Monitoring ◽  
Flap Viability ◽  
Senior Clinician ◽  
Flap Monitoring

Abstract Aim Multiple techniques exist to monitor free flap viability postoperatively, varying with practical and personal preference, yet the limitations of each technique remain unquantified. This systematic review aims to identify the most commonly reported limitations of these techniques in clinical practice. Method A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science with search criteria for postoperative free flap monitoring techniques. Search results were independently screened using defined criteria by two authors and a senior clinician. Limitations of the techniques found in the discussion section of eligible papers were recorded and categorised using recurrent theme analysis. Results A total of 4826 records were identified. 4643 articles met the eligibility criteria and were subsequently reviewed, with 195 papers included in the final analysis. The most frequently reported limitations of clinical monitoring were interpretation requiring expertise (25% of related papers), unsuitability for buried flaps (21%), and lack of quantitative/objective values (19%). For non-invasive technologies: lack of quantitative/objective values (21%), cost (16%) and interpretation requiring expertise (13%). For invasive technologies: application requiring expertise (25%), equipment design and malfunction (13%) and cost (13%). Conclusions This is the first systematic review to quantify the limitations of different flap monitoring techniques as reported in the literature. The limitations identified better inform clinicians to decide the best single or combined monitoring approach for their practice and aid development in new flap monitoring technologies.

Review of Flap Monitoring Technology in 2020

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (06) ◽  
pp. 722-726
Author(s):  
Adam Jacobson ◽  
Oriana Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck ◽  
Free Flap ◽  
Loss Rate ◽  
Early Recognition ◽  
Postoperative Patient ◽  
Free Flap Monitoring ◽  
Improved Outcomes ◽  
Vascular Compromise ◽  
Flap Monitoring ◽  
Multiple Levels

AbstractAdvances in free flap reconstruction of complex head and neck defects have allowed for improved outcomes in the management of head and neck cancer. Technical refinements have decreased flap loss rate to less than 4%. However, the potential for flap failure exists at multiple levels, ranging from flap harvest and inset to pedicle lay and postoperative patient and positioning factors. While conventional methods of free flap monitoring (reliant on physical examination) remain the most frequently used, additional adjunctive methods have been developed. Herein we describe the various modalities of both invasive and noninvasive free flap monitoring available to date. Still, further prospective studies are needed to compare the various invasive and noninvasive technologies and to propel innovations to support the early recognition of vascular compromise with the goal of even greater rates of flap salvage.

Current Approaches to Free Flap Monitoring

2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 52-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert H. Chao ◽  
Susan Lamp
Keyword(s):  
Free Flap ◽  
Free Flap Monitoring ◽  
Flap Monitoring

scholarly journals Reply: Refinements in Postoperative Free Flap Monitoring

2011 ◽  
Vol 127 (6) ◽  
pp. 2512
Author(s):  
Jeroen M. Smit ◽  
Clark J. Zeebregts ◽  
Rafael Acosta ◽  
Paul M. N. Werker
Keyword(s):  
Free Flap ◽  
Free Flap Monitoring ◽  
Flap Monitoring

New prospects in postoperative free flap monitoring

2011 ◽  
Vol 40 (10) ◽  
pp. 1149
Author(s):  
B. Henault ◽  
A. Duvernay ◽  
M. Roche ◽  
N. Zwetyenga
Keyword(s):  
Free Flap ◽  
Free Flap Monitoring ◽  
Flap Monitoring

Continuous free flap monitoring: a modification of the Licox catheter probe system

2003 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 140-143
Author(s):  
L.-P. Kamolz ◽  
H. Lanm�ller ◽  
O. C. Aszmann ◽  
P. Giovanoli ◽  
R. Koller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Free Flap ◽  
Free Flap Monitoring ◽  
Probe System ◽  
Flap Monitoring

Real time microdialysis analysis for free flap monitoring: results of a pilot study

2012 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. S36-S37
Author(s):  
T. Aldridge ◽  
K. Herd ◽  
S. Colbert ◽  
R. Anand ◽  
P. Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Free Flap ◽  
Free Flap Monitoring ◽  
Flap Monitoring

Enhanced recovery after surgery for head and neck free flap reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Oral Oncology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 105117
Author(s):  
Kevin Chorath ◽  
Beatrice Go ◽  
Justin R. Shinn ◽  
Leila J. Mady ◽  
Seerat Poonia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Free Flap ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Flap Reconstruction ◽  
Free Flap Reconstruction
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document