Abstract:The anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap has become a workhorse in reconstructive surgery of the head and neck region and the extremities. However, its inconsistent vascular anatomy and frequent intramuscular course of perforators often cause difficulties during the dissection of this versatile flap. Hence, reliable preoperative perforator mapping and identification of vascular anomalies may render the raising of the flap easier and safer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of Color Duplex sonography and … Show more
“…Data obtained in our study confirms that CDU is highly sensitive, over 93%, when used for preoperative perforator mapping. These findings correlate well with other published data [26,27], showing the high level of reproducibility among various studies.…”
Aims: The high technical demands associated with perforator flaps demand a precise preoperative identification and evaluation of perforator vessels. Color Doppler Ultrasonography (CDU) and Dynamic Infrared Thermography (DIRT) are currently used for preoperative perforator mapping. Each individual technique has advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the value of combining the two methods in order to optimize the process of preoperative perforator mapping. Material and methods: CDU and DIRT were used for preoperative perforator mapping in 10 pigs. The results were compared to intraoperative findings. Total number of perforators, localization, and identification of the dominant perforator was analyzed for each method. The examination time was recorded for each procedure. Results: Both methods had a high sensitivity in determining the number and localization of perforators when compared to those identified during surgery. DIRT produced a higher number of false positive results. CDU accurately identified the emergence of the perforators in the fascia in all cases. Both methods correctly identified the dominant perforator. The sensitivity, positive predictive value, and accuracy of CDU were 93.56%, 97%, and 91.30% respectively and for DIRT 95.05%, 80.67%, and 77.41% respectively. The average examination was 39.76 minutes for CDU and 10.24 minutes for DIRT. The average time taken into account for the analysis of a single perforator in order to confirm DIRT findings was 1.83 minutes. Conclusions: Preoperative perforator mapping has become a compulsory step in nearly all reconstructive procedures. In our study, both CDU and DIRT correctly identified the dominant perforator in all cases. By combining the two examinations overall mapping time can be reduced significantly. A reduced examination time translates into increased patient compliance and a lower procedure cost. The combined mapping technique facilitates the selection of the ideal perforator in all cases. Correctly identifying the dominant perforator preoperatively reduces operative time, lowers complication rates and ensures an overall better result.
“…Data obtained in our study confirms that CDU is highly sensitive, over 93%, when used for preoperative perforator mapping. These findings correlate well with other published data [26,27], showing the high level of reproducibility among various studies.…”
Aims: The high technical demands associated with perforator flaps demand a precise preoperative identification and evaluation of perforator vessels. Color Doppler Ultrasonography (CDU) and Dynamic Infrared Thermography (DIRT) are currently used for preoperative perforator mapping. Each individual technique has advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the value of combining the two methods in order to optimize the process of preoperative perforator mapping. Material and methods: CDU and DIRT were used for preoperative perforator mapping in 10 pigs. The results were compared to intraoperative findings. Total number of perforators, localization, and identification of the dominant perforator was analyzed for each method. The examination time was recorded for each procedure. Results: Both methods had a high sensitivity in determining the number and localization of perforators when compared to those identified during surgery. DIRT produced a higher number of false positive results. CDU accurately identified the emergence of the perforators in the fascia in all cases. Both methods correctly identified the dominant perforator. The sensitivity, positive predictive value, and accuracy of CDU were 93.56%, 97%, and 91.30% respectively and for DIRT 95.05%, 80.67%, and 77.41% respectively. The average examination was 39.76 minutes for CDU and 10.24 minutes for DIRT. The average time taken into account for the analysis of a single perforator in order to confirm DIRT findings was 1.83 minutes. Conclusions: Preoperative perforator mapping has become a compulsory step in nearly all reconstructive procedures. In our study, both CDU and DIRT correctly identified the dominant perforator in all cases. By combining the two examinations overall mapping time can be reduced significantly. A reduced examination time translates into increased patient compliance and a lower procedure cost. The combined mapping technique facilitates the selection of the ideal perforator in all cases. Correctly identifying the dominant perforator preoperatively reduces operative time, lowers complication rates and ensures an overall better result.
“…Literature on the validity of the Doppler for detecting perforators has shown variable results. Giunta et al and Ensat et al found positive predictive value rates of 52% and 69%, respectively [12,13]. Two other studies reported higher positive predictive value rates varying from 82 to 94% [14,16].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…So far the Doppler device has only been studied for its validity, which means that a positive signal indicates the presence of a perforator [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. The presented validity properties of the Doppler device differ considerably across studies [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…The presented validity properties of the Doppler device differ considerably across studies [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17].…”
“…To speed up raising the flap and facilitate planning of the initial skin incision with which to expose the perforator, techniques such as computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) angiography (Habib A, et al The role of preoperative perforator mapping using CT angiography compared with conventional Doppler in the successful harvest of antero-lateral thigh flaps: a comparative prospective study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, 2011), 22,23 near infrared spectroscopy 24 or colourcoded Duplex sonography 25 have been suggested. These methods have been proved to detect perforators in at least 95% of cases.…”
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.