Intraoperative Vasopressor Usage in Free Tissue Transfer: Should We Be Worried?

BACKGROUND: The role of vasopressors has long been a subject of debate in microsurgery. Conventional wisdom dictates the avoidance of vasopressor use, due to concerns such as peripheral vasoconstriction, inducing vasospasm of the anastomoses, and leading to failure in perfusion. It has since become common practice in some centers to avoid intraoperative vasopressor use during free tissue transfer surgery. Recent studies have suggested that this traditional view may not be supported by clinical evidence. However, none of these studies have separated vasopressor use by method of administration. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of our experience of vasopressor use in free flap surgery at a single high-volume center. The outcome measures were flap failure, flap-related complications and overall postoperative complications (reported using the Clavien-Dindo classification). Groups were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's Exact test where appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 777 cases in 717 patients were identified. 59.1% of these had vasopressors administered intraoperatively. The overall failure rate was 2.2%, with 9.8% experienced flap-related complications. There was no difference in flap loss when vasopressors were administered, but an increased rate of microvascular thrombosis was noted (p = 0.003). Continuous administration of vasopressors was associated with reduced venous congestion, whereas intermittent boluses increased risk of microvascular thrombosis. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms previous findings that intraoperative vasopressor use in free flap surgery is not associated with increased failure rate. Administering vasopressors continuously may be safer than via repeated boluses.

Developing a laparoscopic radical prostatectomy service: defining the learning curve.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) is an established treatment for patients with prostate cancer in selected centers with appropriate expertise. We studied our single-center experience of developing a LRP service and subsequent training of two additional surgeons by the initial surgeon. We assessed the learning curve of the three surgeons with regard to perioperative outcomes and oncologic results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred consecutive patients underwent a LRP between January 2005 and April 2011. Patients were divided into three equal groups (1-100 group 1], 101-200 [group 2], and 201-300 [group 3]). Age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, preoperative comorbidities, and indications for LRP were comparable for all three patient groups. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were compared across all three groups to assess the impact of the learning curve for LRP. All surgical complications were classified using the Clavien-Dindo system (CDS). RESULTS: The mean age was 61.9 years (range 46-74 y). There was a significant reduction in the mean operative time (P<0.05), mean blood loss (P<0.05), mean duration of hospital stay (P<0.05), and duration of catherization (P<0.05) between the three groups as the series progressed. The two most important factors predictive of positive surgical margins at LRP were the initial prostate-specific antigen level and tumor stage at diagnosis. The overall positive margin rate was 27.7%. For pT(2) tumors, the positive margin rate was 21%, while patients with pT(3) tumors had a positive margin of 44%. For pT(2) tumors, positive margin rates decreased with increasing experience (group 1, 27% vs group 2, 17% vs group 3, 19%). The incidence of major complications--ie, grade CDS score ≤ III--was 4.6% (14/300). CONCLUSION: LRP is a safe procedure with low morbidity. As surgeons progress through the learning curve, perioperative parameters and oncologic outcomes improve. Using a carefully mentored approach, LRP can be safely introduced as a new procedure without compromising patient outcomes.