Background
Licox® PtO2 is a minimally invasive monitoring system for continuous measurement of tissue oxygen tension in all types of free tissue transfers. Our study compares two consecutive series of patients undergoing microsurgical reconstruction monitored with standard clinical bedside surveillance and with the Licox® PtO2 system regarding flap loss and flap salvage, the sensitivity, specificity, and cost‐effectiveness.
Methods
We performed a longitudinal observational prospective study of all patients undergoing microsurgical reconstructions between 2016 and 2017. Group 1 included 43 patients that underwent standard clinical bedside postoperative flap monitoring whereas group 2 included 44 consecutive patients also monitored with Licox® PtO2 system. Flap complications such as return to theater for vascular compromise, partial and total flap loss and flap salvage rate were analyzed.
Results
We recorded no significant difference between the two groups regarding the rate of vascular complications (P = .31), return to the theater (P = .31), flap salvage (P = .9), partial and total flap loss (P = .36 and P = .49, respectively). When analyzing the Licox® PtO2 system monitoring group, we documented six false‐positive results (13.6%) and 0 false negatives with an accuracy of 0.86, a sensibility of 1.00, and a specificity of 0.85.
Conclusions
This is the first study that provides statistical data about the comparison of postoperative free flap monitoring by standard clinical bedside method and Licox® PtO2 system. For the monitoring of buried flaps, the Licox® PtO2 monitoring can be used only as a supplement to other systems. Its use, compared to near‐infrared spectroscopy or clinical bedside monitoring, was not found cost‐efficient.
Introduction:The anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap is considered a workhorse reconstructive option; however, it is encumbered by its bulkiness that can result in poor final outcome and need for revision surgery. The aim of the present study was to compare the standard cutaneous ALT free flap and sandwich fascial ALT (SALT) free flap, raised harvesting between the Scarpa's fascia and the crural fascia, for distal extremity soft tissue reconstruction, including pre-intra-and post-operative considerations and outcomes.Patients and methods: A retrospective review of medical records from 2013 to 2018 of 24 patients who underwent distal extremity reconstruction with standard fasciocutaneous ALT flap (13 patients) and SALT flap (11 patients) was performed. The mean defect dimensions were 12 × 6.5 cm in group 1 and 12 × 6 in group 2. Surgical outcomes and quality of life were assessed (through the upper extremity functional scale and the lower extremity functional scale questionnaires.
Results:The mean flap dimensions were 13.1 × 7.1 in group 1 and 14.1 × 7.8 in group 2, the overall flap success rate was 100% (one microvascular venous thrombosis occurred in group 1), no statistically significant difference was recorded regarding microvascular thrombosis (one patient in group p = .369) and infections (one patient in group 1, p = .36) while a statistically significant difference was presence regarding the number of secondary/debulking procedures (6 patients vs. 0) (p = .0076) and the quality of life perception showed an overall better perception in group 2 with statistical significant difference (p = .03).
Conclusion:The SALT flap represents a valid option, as showed through our preliminary data, when a thin and robust reconstruction is required when dealing with distal extremities soft tissue reconstruction.
Vicryl hypersensitivity is rare but its incidence increases. We report the first clinical case diagnosed by a novel testing method implemented by traditional histological analysis
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.