Chimeric versus Multiple Flaps for Composite Oral Cavity Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Complex head and neck defects involving composite defects can be reconstructed using chimeric flaps or multiple flaps with separate anastomoses. Limited comparisons exist between chimeric and multiple flap reconstructions. We compare outcomes between chimeric and multiple flap reconstructions in oral cavity reconstruction. DATA SOURCES: PubMed (NLM), Embase (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), and Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, including English articles reporting outcomes of oral cavity reconstruction with either chimeric flaps or multiple flaps. Data extraction included patient characteristics, flap type, and outcomes such as flap survival, partial flap loss, operating room time, hospital length of stay, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Forty-seven articles comprising 1435 patients were included. Notably, 552 patients underwent multiple flaps, while 883 received chimeric flaps. Meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in flap survival between chimeric and multiple flap patients (98% vs. 99%, p = 0.198). Multiple flap patients had higher rates of operating room take-backs for anastomotic issues and longer hospital stays compared with chimeric flap patients. There were no significant differences in partial flap failure, resumption of diet and speech, need for subsequent flaps, fistula formation, or general complications. CONCLUSION: This large-scale meta-analysis demonstrates equivalent flap survival between chimeric and multiple flaps in the reconstruction of composite oral cavity defects. Both approaches appear to be safe and acceptable, with comparable outcomes in terms of diet and speech resumption, rates of fistulization, and general postoperative complications. Multiple flap patients had higher rates of operating room take-backs and longer hospital stays. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 134:4196-4202, 2024.

The Critical Blood-Sparing Effect of Tranexamic Acid (TXA) in Liposuction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: Tranexamic acid (TXA) has been used to improve bleeding outcomes in many surgical procedures. However, its blood-sparing effect in liposuction is not well established. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WorldWideScience.org databases from their inception to October 8, 2021, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The authors focused on 3 main topics: 1) TXA, 2) liposuction, and 3) complications. We included articles evaluating the potential blood-sparing effects of TXA in liposuction. Studies were excluded if they were systematic review articles or protocol papers, animal studies, conference abstracts, survey studies, or non-English publications. Results: A total of 711 articles were identified, with 1 retrospective and 4 prospective (3 randomized) studies meeting our inclusion criteria. TXA was used in various forms: administered intravenously either on induction or after the procedure, mixed into the tumescent solution, or infiltrated into the liposuction sites after lipoaspiration. A significantly smaller reduction in hematocrit was noted in the TXA group compared with that in the non-TXA group (p<0.001) despite a significantly greater amount of lipoaspirate removed in the TXA group (p<0.001). Patients in non-TXA cohorts experienced adverse effects (such as seroma and need for transfusion) that were not seen in TXA cohorts. Conclusion: TXA use in patients undergoing liposuction seems to be associated with a beneficial blood-sparing effect, which may enhance safety in this population. Future studies should aim to determine the optimal route and dosing for TXA in liposuction. Evidence Based Medicine: Level IV.

Comparing outcomes in patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: single versus bilateral lung transplants.

OBJECTIVES: Debate continues on whether a bilateral (BLT) or a single lung transplantation (SLT) is preferred for patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The purpose of this study is to examine the interplay between patient age and transplant type on survival outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of lung transplants for COPD at our centre from February 2012 to March 2020 (n = 186). Demographics and clinical parameters were compared between patients based on their age (≤65 vs >65 years old) and type of transplant (single vs bilateral). Cox proportional hazards regression was also performed. P-values <0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Of the 186 patients with COPD who received lung transplants, 71 (38.2%) received BLTs and 115 (61.8%) received SLTs. There was no significant difference in survival outcomes when looking at patients with single versus BLTs (P = 0.870). There was also no difference in survival between the 2 age groups ≤65 versus > 65 years (P = 0.723). The Cox model itself also did not show a statistically significant improvement in survival outcomes (P = 0.126). CONCLUSIONS: Lung transplant outcomes in patients with end-stage COPD demonstrated non-inferior results in patients with an SLT compared to patients with a BLT. When we compared the age groups, neither transplant type showed superior survival benefits, suggesting there may be some utility in an SLT in younger recipients.