Are Surgical Drains Needed in DIEP Flap Surgery? The Drain-Free DIEP Flap Concept.

BACKGROUND: Studies support an inherent morbidity associated with the use of surgical drains-such as postoperative pain, infection, reduction in mobility, and delay in patient discharge-and they do not prevent seroma or hematoma. The authors' series aims to evaluate the feasibility, benefits, and safety of performing drainless deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap surgery and to formulate an algorithm for when this can be used. METHODS: A retrospective review of DIEP reconstruction outcomes of two surgeons was performed. Over the course of 24 months, consecutive DIEP flap patients were included from the Royal Marsden Hospital in London and Austin Hospital in Melbourne, and drain use, drain output, length of stay (LOS), and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 107 DIEP flap reconstructions were performed by two surgeons. Thirty-five patients had abdominal drainless DIEP flaps, and 12 patients had totally drainless DIEP flaps. Mean age was 52 years (range, 34 to 73 years) and mean body mass index was 26.8 kg/m 2 (range, 19.0 to 41.3 kg/m 2 ). Abdominal drainless patients showed a potential trend toward shorter hospital stays as compared with the ones with drains (mean LOS, 3.74 days versus 4.05 days; P = 0.154). Totally drainless patients had an even shorter, statistically significant, mean LOS of 3.10 days, as compared with patients with drains (4.05 days, P = 0.002), with no increase in complications. CONCLUSIONS: The avoidance of abdominal drains in DIEP flaps reduces hospital stay without increasing complications, and this has become our standard practice for patients with a body mass index of less than 30 kg/m 2 . It is our opinion that the totally drainless DIEP flap procedure is safe in selected patients. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Preoperative volume estimation in transverse upper gracilis flap surgery: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The transverse upper gracilis (TUG) flap provides a good alternative to the gold standard DIEP in breast reconstruction. However, flap volume estimates are subjective, making preoperative planning potentially challenging. STUDY AIM: To derive a reliable, accurate, and reproducible mathematical algorithm for the preoperative calculation of TUG flap volumes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen consecutive patients with 30 TUG flaps were prospectively included. On the assumption that the TUG flap resembles two isosceles prisms, the formula of the volume of a prism was used to calculate their preoperative flap weights. These were then intraoperatively compared to the actual flap weights. A regression equation was calculated from the correlation analysis of 10 random flaps. This was then applied to the remaining 20 flaps to assess for improved reliability and weight prediction accuracy. RESULTS: The prism volume equation used to clinically calculate flap volumes was: Geometric flap weight = (h1bT)/2+ (h2bT)/2, (h = height, b = base, T = flap thickness); all in centimetres. Geometric and actual flap weights were found to be significantly correlated (r2 = 0.977) generating the following regression formula: predicted TUG weight = 0.924 × geometric weight + 26.601. When this was applied to the remaining 20 flaps, no significant difference was found (p = 0.625) between predicted and actual flap weights, demonstrating an increased accuracy of predicting flap volume. CONCLUSION: The proposed formula provides the clinician with a more accurate and reliable estimation of available TUG flap volume and may potentially aid with preoperative planning and patient consultations.

The use of computed tomography for the estimation of DIEP flap weights in breast reconstruction: a simple mathematical formula.

BACKGROUND: Estimation of the volume of abdominal tissue is desirable when planning autologous abdominal based breast reconstruction. However, this can be difficult clinically. The aim of this study was to develop a simple, yet reliable method of calculating the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap weight using the routine preoperative computed tomography angiogram (CTA) scan. METHODS: Our mathematical formula is based on the shape of a DIEP flap resembling that of an isosceles triangular prism. Thus its volume can be calculated with a standard mathematical formula. Using bony landmarks three measurements were acquired from the CTA scan to calculate the flap weight. This was then compared to the actual flap weight harvested in both a retrospective feasibility and prospective study. RESULTS: In the retrospective group 17 DIEP flaps in 17 patients were analyzed. Average predicted flap weight was 667 g (range 293-1254). The average actual flap weight was 657 g (range 300-1290) giving an average percentage error of 6.8% (p-value for weight difference 0.53). In the prospective group 15 DIEP flaps in 15 patients were analyzed. Average predicted flap weight was 618 g (range 320-925). The average actual flap weight was 624 g (range 356-970) giving an average percentage error of 6.38% (p-value for weight difference 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: This formula is a quick, reliable and accurate way of estimating the volume of abdominal tissue using the preoperative CTA scan.

A meta-analysis of mini-open versus standard open and laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy.

Mini-open donor nephrectomy (MODN) potentially combines advantages of standard open (SODN) and laparoscopic techniques (LDN). This article is a comparison of these techniques. A literature search was performed for studies comparing MODN with SODN or LDN. Nine studies met our selection criteria. Of the 1038 patients, 433 (42%) underwent MODN, 389 (37%) SODN and 216 (21%) LDN. MODN versus SODN: Operative time (P = 0.17), warm ischemia time (P = 0.20) and blood loss (P = 0.30) were not significantly different. Hospital stay and time to return to work were shorter for MODN by 1.67 days (P < 0.001) and 5 weeks (P = 0.03). Analgesia requirement and overall complications were less in the MODN group (P < 0.001) and (P = 0.03). Ureteric complications (P = 0.21) and 1-year graft survival (P = 0.28) were not significantly different. MODN versus LDN: Operative and warm ischemia times were significantly shorter for the MODN by 55 min (P = 0.005) and 147 s (P < 0.001). Analgesia requirement was greater for the MODN group by 9.62 mEq morphine (P = 0.04). No significant differences were found for blood loss (P = 0.8), hospital stay (P = 0.35), donor complications (P = 0.40) or ureteric complications (P = 0.83). MODN appears to provide advantages for the donor in comparison to SODN and also has a shorter operative time when compared with the LDN.

The effect of smoking after surgery for Crohn's disease: a meta-analysis of observational studies.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to quantify the risk of disease recurrence associated with cigarette smoking for individuals with Crohn's disease after disease-modifying surgery. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of observational studies. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Ovid and the Cochrane database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1966 and 2007 comparing outcomes of smokers, ex-smokers and non-smokers with Crohn's disease. Random-effect meta-analytical techniques were employed to assess the risk of medical or surgical recurrence. RESULTS: Sixteen studies encompassing 2,962 patients including 1,425 non-smokers (48.1%), 1,393 smokers (47.0%) and 137 ex-smokers (4.6%) were included. Smokers had significantly higher clinical post-operative recurrence than non-smokers (odds ratio [OR] = 2.15; 95%CI = 1.42, 3.27; p < 0.001). Smokers were also more likely to experience surgical recurrence by 5 (OR = 1.06; 95%CI = 0.32; 3.53, p = 0.04) and 10 years of follow-up (OR = 2.56; 95%CI = 1.79, 3.67; p < 0.001) compared to non-smokers, although the crude re-operation rate was not statistically significant. When matched for operation and disease site, smokers had significantly higher re-operation rates to non-smokers (OR = 2.3; 95%CI = 1.29, 4.08; p = 0.005). There was no significant difference between ex-smokers and non-smokers in re-operation rate at 10 years (OR = 0.30; 95%CI = 0.09, 1.07; p = 0.10) or in post-operative acute relapses (OR = 1.54; 95%CI = 0.78, 3.02; p = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Crohn's disease who smoke have a 2.5-fold increased risk of surgical recurrence and a twofold risk of clinical recurrence compared to non-smokers. Patients with Crohn's disease should be encouraged to stop smoking since the risk of disease relapse is minimised upon its cessation.

Laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy in renal transplantation: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy using meta-analytical techniques. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has gained widespread acceptance and is increasingly performed. The body of evidence assessing the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic compared with established open techniques is growing; however, very few randomized control trials exist and individual studies often have small patient numbers with varying results. We combined the available raw data to strengthen the current literature in comparing these techniques. METHODS: A literature search was performed and comparative studies published between 1997 and 2006 of open versus laparoscopic donor nephrectomy were included. Outcomes evaluated were operative and warm ischemia times, blood loss, donor complications, length of hospital stay, time to return to work, and delayed graft function. RESULTS: Seventy-three studies matched the selection criteria and included 6594 patients, 3751 (57%) had undergone laparoscopic surgery and 2843 (43%) open nephrectomy. The open nephrectomy group had shorter operative and warm ischemia times by 52 minutes (P < 0.001) and 102 seconds (P < 0.001), respectively. This did not translate into higher delayed graft function or graft loss rates between the 2 groups. Patients in the laparoscopic group had a shorter hospital stay and a faster return to work by 1.58 days (P < 0.001) and 2.38 weeks (P < 0.001), respectively. There was a significantly higher rate of overall donor complications in the open group (P = 0.007), a finding not reproduced in any subsequent sensitivity analyses. When only randomized control trials were considered, there were shorter operative times (P = 0.002) for the open group but nonsignificantly different warm ischemia times. In contrast to the main analysis there were no differences in the overall complication rate, postoperative analgesia, hospital stay, or time taken to return to work. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic nephrectomy in live donor transplantation is a safe alternative to the open technique. Although open nephrectomy may be associated with shorter operative and warm ischemia times, patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy may benefit from a shorter hospital stay and faster return to work without compromising graft function.

Outcome of kidney transplantation from nonheart-beating versus heart-beating cadaveric donors.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess outcomes of kidney transplants from nonheart-beating (NHB) compared with heart-beating (HB) cadaveric donors with meta-analytical techniques. METHODS: A literature search was performed for studies comparing kidney transplants from NHB vs. HB cadaveric donors between 1992 and 2005. The following outcomes were evaluated: warm and cold ischemia times, primary nonfunction, delayed graft function, length of hospital stay, acute graft rejection, patient and graft survival, and post-transplant serum creatinine. RESULTS: Eighteen comparative studies of 114,081 patients matched the selection criteria; 1,858 received kidney from NHB and 112,223 from HB donor. Warm ischemia time was significantly longer for the NHB group by 24 min (P<0.001). Cold ischemia time was similar for the two groups (P=0.97). The incidence of primary nonfunction and delayed graft function was 2.4 times (P<0.001) and 3.6 times (P<0.001) greater, respectively, in the NHB group. Length of hospital stay was longer for the NHB group by 4.6 days (P<0.001). The 6-month, 2-year, and 5-year patient survival were similar between the two groups. The incidence of acute rejection was similar between the two groups whereas the initial graft survival advantage in favor of the HB group diminished gradually over the course of time. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for the recipient serum creatinine levels at 3 and 12 months after transplantation. CONCLUSION: NHB donors carry the potential of expanding the cadaveric kidney pool. Although, transplants from NHB donors are associated with a greater incidence of early adverse events, long-term outcomes appear comparable with those of transplants from HB donors.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus hand-assisted live donor nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy with the classic laparoscopic method, using meta-analytical techniques. METHODS: A literature search was performed for studies comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy with classic laparoscopic nephrectomy for live kidney donation between 1999 and 2005. The following end points were evaluated: operative time, warm ischemia time, intraoperative adverse events, donor and recipient postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Nine comparative studies matched the selection criteria, reporting on 376 patients, of whom 202 (53.7%) had hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy and 174 (46.3%) had the classic laparoscopic technique. Conversion to open surgery was 2.97% in the hand-assisted group and 4.60% in the laparoscopic group (P=0.35). Total operative and warm ischemia times were significantly shorter for hand-assisted laparoscopy by 30.03 minutes (P=0.02) and 1.14 minutes (P<0.001), respectively. The intraoperative blood loss was less for the hand-assisted laparoscopy group by 34.16 mL (P=0.008), although intraoperative (3.46% vs. 7.47%; P=0.24) and postoperative (5.94% vs. 10.34%; P=0.30) donor complications and recipient complications (including delayed graft function and primary nonfunction, 8.41% vs. 7.42%; P=0.32) were similar between the hand-assisted and laparoscopic groups. CONCLUSION: Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy appeared to have the same donor and recipient complication rate with standard laparoscopy but offered substantial advantages in terms of shortened operative and warm ischemia time as well as decreased intraoperative bleeding.