Is Supraclavicular Artery Island flap (SAI) a viable alternative to Free Tissue Transfer (FTT) in head and neck reconstruction? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of Supraclavicular Artery Island (SAI) Flap versus Free Tissue Transfer for head and neck reconstruction. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus and Cochrane Library database according to the PRISMA guidelines. Only comparative studies between the two techniques were included. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: Eight studies, reporting a total of 402 patients and same number of flaps, 165 of which underwent reconstruction using supraclavicular artery island flap and 237 reconstructed with free tissue transfer were identified. No statistically significant differences were observed regarding major complications, total flap necrosis, partial flap necrosis, post operative fistula formation, donor site dehiscence, recipient site dehiscence and total flap area. CONCLUSION: Supraclavicular artery island flap and free tissue transfer seem to be comparable when used in head and neck reconstruction.

One miniplate versus two miniplates in the fixation of mandibular angle fractures. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes after using one miniplate fixation in the external oblique ridge versus two miniplate fixation for mandibular angle fractures. METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus and Cochrane Library database was performed (last search date: 04 February 2022) according to the PRISMA guidelines. The research question was addressed using the PICO criteria. Only comparative studies between the two techniques were included. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: Seventeen studies, comprising a total of 1667 patients, 846 undergoing one miniplate fixation and 854 undergoing two miniplate fixation for mandibular angle fractures were identified. No statistically significant differences were observed regarding surgical site infection (odds ratio [OR]= 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.69] - [1.28], p = 0.68, I2=0.00%), post-operative malocclusion (OR= 0.97, 95% CI: [0.53] - [1.18], p = 0.25, I2=0.00%), post-operative neurosensory dysfunction (OR= 0.67, 95% CI: [0.37] - [1.22], p = 0.19, I2=73.93%), pseudoarthrosis formation (OR=0.90, 95% CI: [0.58] - [(1.39], p = 0.63, I2=0.00%). Wound dehiscence was marginally less common in the one miniplate group (OR=0.52, 95% CI: [0.28] - [0.98], p = 0.04, I2=54.34%). The probability of scarring formation (OR=0.13, 95% CI: [0.05] - [0.32], p = 0.00, I2=0.00%) and hardware failure (OR=0.36, 95% CI [0.21] - [0.62], p = 0.00, I2=29.33%) were statistically significantly higher in the two miniplates arm. CONCLUSION: One miniplate fixation and two miniplates fixation of mandibular angle fractures have similar results regarding post operative infection, malocclusion, neurosensory dysfunction and pseudoarthrosis formation while wound dehiscence, hardware failure and scarring seem to be more common when two miniplates are used as a fixation technique.

[Prophylactic Appendectomy: Yes or No?] / Begleitappendektomie: ja oder nein?

Background At more than 50%, appendicitis is the leading cause of acute intra-abdominal disease requiring surgery. In the course of various other operations, prophylactic appendectomy (PA) is frequently performed. Objectives This study examines to what extent PA is justified. Patients and Methods A prospective study was performed in all patients (n = 173) undergoing prophylactic appendectomy in Katharinen Hospital Unna between January 2010 and October 2013. The following variables were analysed: age, gender, type of primary surgery, emergency or elective surgery, complications, lethality, intraoperative and histopathological evaluation of the appendix. In addition, patients were contacted postoperatively with the request to complete a questionnaire. Results Prophylactic appendectomy was carried out without any specific complications. 117 patients (68%) participated in the survey. 15% of these patients had suffered symptoms that could be attributable to irritation of the appendix. With only one exception, all appendectomy specimens revealed pathological findings in the histopathological examination. PA allowed the early diagnosis of 4 adenomas, one neuroendocrine tumour and 6 metastases or manifestations of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Conclusion PA is ethically justifiable, as there are few complications. Moreover, it can help to avoid future appendicitis and allows early detection of malignancies.