Flap Venous Congestion and Salvage Techniques: A Systematic Literature Review.

Venous congestion is a frequent problem in flap surgery. Other than surgical revision, there are a multitude of procedures in the literature to tackle this problem, but their effectiveness is not clear. Through a systematic review, we aimed to identify and evaluate the different interventions available for managing flap venous congestion. METHODS: The MEDLINE, PubMed central, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched. The study selection process was adapted from the PRISMA statement. All English and French original articles describing or comparing a method for managing flap venous congestion were included. For each article, a level of evidence was assigned, as defined by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. Lastly, we specifically analyzed the effectiveness of postoperative non-surgical methods. No formal analysis was performed. RESULTS: Through literature searches carried out in various databases, we identified 224 articles. Finally, 72 articles were included. The majority of these studies had a low-level evidence. A total of 17 different methods (7 pre- and intraoperative, and 10 postoperative) were found. Concerning non-surgical methods, the most represented were leeches, local subcutaneous injection of heparin with scarification, venocutaneous catheterization, negative pressure therapy, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Risks of venous congestion of flaps must always be present in a surgeon's mind, at every stage of flap surgery. Apart from studies on the use of leeches, which have a significant follow-up and large enough patient numbers to support their efficacy, the low-level evidence associated with studies of other methods of venous congestion management does not allow us to draw a scientifically valid conclusion about their effectiveness.

Comparison of Single and Double Venous Anastomoses in Head and Neck Oncologic Reconstruction Using Free Flaps: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Venous insufficiency is the main cause of failure and surgical revision in free flap surgery. Achieving a double venous anastomosis is frequently proposed to improve flap drainage. However, this procedure remains controversial. The authors evaluated, through a meta-analysis, the benefit of double venous anastomoses in the venous thrombosis, surgical revision, and failure rates of free flaps in head and neck oncologic reconstruction. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria in the MEDLINE, PubMed Central, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases. Statistical heterogeneity evaluation and then fixed effects and random effects models were used. RESULTS: Sixteen articles were included involving 3684 flaps. The overall success rate was 96.15 percent. The authors reported a failure rate of 1.51 percent in the group with two anastomoses versus 5.03 percent in the group with single anastomoses (OR, 0.64; 95 percent CI, 0.277 to 1.522; p = 0.320). The authors found a venous thrombosis rate of 2.74 percent in the group with two anastomoses versus 4.54 percent in the group with single anastomoses (OR, 0.535; 95 percent CI, 0.334 to 0.858; p = 0.009). There were also more surgical revisions in the single venous anastomoses group, 11.87 percent versus 6.04 percent (OR, 0.474; 95 percent CI, 0.349 to 0.643; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis supports that performing a double venous anastomosis confers protective effects in venous thrombosis and surgical revision, thus reducing free flap failure. The authors recommend the achievement of double venous anastomosis whenever it is feasible in head and neck oncologic reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Double Venous Anastomosis in Free Flaps.

BACKGROUND: Venous problems are the most frequent causes of flap failure and surgical revision in free flap surgery. Double venous anastomosis can be used to improve flap drainage, but this procedure has not been adopted universally and remains controversial. The authors evaluated the benefits of double venous anastomosis in terms of venous thrombosis rate, surgical revision of flaps, and flap failure rate. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted searching the MEDLINE, PubMed Central, Cochrane, and Embase databases for articles published between 1996 and July of 2014. Data analysis consisted of evaluating the pooled relative risks of single and double venous anastomoses in fixed and random-effects models. RESULTS: The final analysis included 27 articles involving 6842 flaps. The overall success rate was 97.48 percent. Single venous anastomosis was performed in 4591 flaps versus two anastomoses in 2251 flaps. The failure rate was 3.1 percent for single anastomosis versus 1.3 percent for double anastomosis (OR, 0.511; 95 percent CI, 0.349 to 0.747; p = 0.001). The respective thrombosis rates were 3.1 percent versus 2.3 percent (OR, 0.586; 95 percent CI, 0.390 to 0.880; p = 0.010). In addition, more single venous anastomoses were revised: 7.7 percent versus 6 percent (OR, 0.601; 95 percent CI, 0.469 to 0.770; p < 0.0001). Stratified analysis by flap type did not show any significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Although the physiologic mechanisms remain poorly understood, the data strongly support double venous anastomosis, considering the reduction in flap failure, microsurgical venous thrombosis, and surgical revision. The authors recommend double anastomosis whenever it is feasible in free flap surgery.

Is the use of negative pressure wound therapy for a malignant wound legitimate in a palliative context? "The concept of NPWT ad vitam": A case series.

BACKGROUND: The management of malignant wounds remains particularly difficult. They are often malodorous, highly exuding, and painful. In this context, the use of negative pressure wound therapy is usually not recommended. It is, however, an effective procedure for maintaining a good quality of life in certain palliative situations. CASE PRESENTATION: Five patients underwent negative pressure wound therapy for a malignant wound in our unit. Three had sarcomas, one patient had a parietal recurrence of breast carcinoma, and one patient had melanoma. They were in a metastatic palliative situation and were no longer receiving specific treatment. CASE MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOMES: The patients reported a decrease in odor and exudates with negative pressure wound therapy, compared with conventional dressings. No patients complained of pain associated with the suction system itself. Fewer dressing changes reduced the pain and encouraged the resumption of social interactions. The average duration of negative pressure wound therapy before the death of the patients was 49 days. No complications or bleeding were observed. The duration of the patients' stay was shortened by implementing negative pressure wound therapy at home. CONCLUSION: We report on our experiences with five patients for whom manufacturers and health authorities contraindicated the use of negative pressure wound therapy because of its potential to encourage tumor growth, although it was considered to be beneficial for all of these patients. This procedure may offer an alternative to conventional wound dressings at the end of life and improve the quality of life of patients by controlling the three most disabling elements: the odor, exudate, and pain associated with changing the dressings. Miniaturization and lower costs could promote the systematic use of negative pressure wound therapy.