The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2014.04.034
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The superficial outside-flap shunt (SOS) technique for free deep inferior epigastric perforator flap salvage

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Salvage intervention procedures included cephalic vein switch/anastomosis, vein graft, and superficial outside‐flap shunt (SOS) technique. (Davies et al, ) One unilateral breast reconstruction case underwent on‐table conversion to a contralateral TRAM after signs of congestion after raising the DIEP. Flap loss in the 4 cases was due to venous congestion ( n = 2), perforator damage during dissection ( n = 1), and arterial insufficiency ( n = 1).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Salvage intervention procedures included cephalic vein switch/anastomosis, vein graft, and superficial outside‐flap shunt (SOS) technique. (Davies et al, ) One unilateral breast reconstruction case underwent on‐table conversion to a contralateral TRAM after signs of congestion after raising the DIEP. Flap loss in the 4 cases was due to venous congestion ( n = 2), perforator damage during dissection ( n = 1), and arterial insufficiency ( n = 1).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(Ali et al, 2010;Sbitany, Mirzabeigi, Kovach, Wu, & Serletti, 2012;Wechselberger et al, 2001) Indeed, if the cause of congestion was a technical issue at the primary venous anastomosis, it is implausible that additional venous anastomoses within the flap would resolve congestion. Salvage options may follow treatment algorithms, (Davies et al, 2014;Galanis et al, 2014) with options including using a contralateral TRAM or additional venous anastomoses utilizing the SIEV lifeboat (Villafane, Gahankari, & Webster, 1999) via cephalic switch, vein graft, interposition of the SIEV to the IMV (Blondeel, 1999;Blondeel et al, 2000) or alternative vessels, (Wechselberger et al, 2001) reverse flow venous anastomosis, (Liu, Ashjian, & Festekjian, 2007) There is likely to be a link between venous congestion and fat necrosis. Fat necrosis incidence ranges from 5% to 35% (Kroll, 2000;Peeters, Nanhekhan, Van Ongeval, Fabre, & Vandevoort, 2009) and non-standardized definitions based combinations of clinical symptoms, signs, or imaging findings remain a challenge.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Villafane et al reported their successful outcome of flap salvaging by using SIEV and described SIEV as a “lifeboat” for DIEP or TRAM flaps . Since then, not a few studies have demonstrated the experiences of successful salvage of congested DIEP flaps using SIEV with diverse techniques . As the experience of DIEP flap breast reconstruction has accumulated and the importance of SIEV in the venous drainage of abdominal flaps has been demonstrated, active applications of SIEV have been attempted, including prophylactic superdrainage using SIEV to reduce the incidence of flap congestion and subsequent complications.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%