Outcomes following head neck free flap reconstruction requiring interposition vein graft or vascular bridge flap

Background Interposition vein grafts (IVG) and vascular bridge flaps (VBF) have been exploited as vascular conduit in challenging head and neck reconstructions. Methods A retrospective review was conducted on 6025 flaps. The effect of patients' characteristics and length of IVG on flap compromi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Head & neck 2019-09, Vol.41 (9), p.2914-2920
Hauptverfasser: Di Taranto, Giuseppe, Chen, Shih‐Heng, Elia, Rossella, Sitpahul, Ngamcherd, Chan, Jeffrey C. Y., Losco, Luigi, Cigna, Emanuele, Ribuffo, Diego, Chen, Hung‐Chi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2920
container_issue 9
container_start_page 2914
container_title Head & neck
container_volume 41
creator Di Taranto, Giuseppe
Chen, Shih‐Heng
Elia, Rossella
Sitpahul, Ngamcherd
Chan, Jeffrey C. Y.
Losco, Luigi
Cigna, Emanuele
Ribuffo, Diego
Chen, Hung‐Chi
description Background Interposition vein grafts (IVG) and vascular bridge flaps (VBF) have been exploited as vascular conduit in challenging head and neck reconstructions. Methods A retrospective review was conducted on 6025 flaps. The effect of patients' characteristics and length of IVG on flap compromise and loss were analyzed. Comparison between IVG and VBF was performed. Results The flap compromise and loss rates for the overall group were 8.2% and 3.2%, respectively. An IVG was used in 309 free flaps. The average length of the vein grafts was 6.9 ± 4.2 cm. An unplanned return to the operation room occurred in 32 cases (10.4%) and failure of the flap in 12 patients (3.9%). Binary logistic regression found a significant association between flap compromise and loss rates and length of IVG, hypertension, prior radiation, and neck dissection. In the multiple regression model, length of IVG and prior radiation significantly influenced the outcomes. Thirty‐nine patients underwent reconstruction with a long IVG (>10 cm). Twenty‐six patients underwent surgical reconstruction with radial forearm flap as a VBF. The rate of flap compromise was higher in the group with a long IVG (P = .01). Conclusions In head and neck free flap reconstruction, the length of IVGs and history of radiotherapy are associated with flap compromise and loss. In case of long distance between the pedicle and the recipient site, the use of a VBF bridge should be considered as a safe alternative.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/hed.25767
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2272183474</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2272183474</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3537-e7eb908399a8999451c3137ac647fcdd731c2d78c623e33334fd3239be909d4c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1PwjAYgBujEUUP_gHTxJOHQb9Y16NRFBMSLnpeSvcOqmMd7Sbh31sYHu2l7Zsnz5s8CN1RMqKEsPEaihGbyFSeoStKlEwIF_L88BY84USKAboO4YsQwlPBLtGAE5VmE0KvULPoWuM2EHDpqsrtbL3Ca9AFrsF849ID4LLSDfZgXB1a35nWujp-t531B9jWLfjGBXuc_4Ct8crrssXO4x8dTFdpj5feFqvedIMuSl0FuD3dQ_T5Ov14niXzxdv789M8MXzCZQISlopkXCmdKaXEhBpOudQmFbI0RSE5NayQmUkZBx6PKAvOuFqCIqoQhg_RQ-9tvNt2ENr8y3W-jitzxiSjWUwkIvXYU8a7EDyUeePtRvt9Tkl-aJvHtvmxbWTvT8ZuuYnTP_IvZgTGPbCzFez_N-Wz6Uuv_AU3TYQ5</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2272183474</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Outcomes following head neck free flap reconstruction requiring interposition vein graft or vascular bridge flap</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Di Taranto, Giuseppe ; Chen, Shih‐Heng ; Elia, Rossella ; Sitpahul, Ngamcherd ; Chan, Jeffrey C. Y. ; Losco, Luigi ; Cigna, Emanuele ; Ribuffo, Diego ; Chen, Hung‐Chi</creator><creatorcontrib>Di Taranto, Giuseppe ; Chen, Shih‐Heng ; Elia, Rossella ; Sitpahul, Ngamcherd ; Chan, Jeffrey C. Y. ; Losco, Luigi ; Cigna, Emanuele ; Ribuffo, Diego ; Chen, Hung‐Chi</creatorcontrib><description>Background Interposition vein grafts (IVG) and vascular bridge flaps (VBF) have been exploited as vascular conduit in challenging head and neck reconstructions. Methods A retrospective review was conducted on 6025 flaps. The effect of patients' characteristics and length of IVG on flap compromise and loss were analyzed. Comparison between IVG and VBF was performed. Results The flap compromise and loss rates for the overall group were 8.2% and 3.2%, respectively. An IVG was used in 309 free flaps. The average length of the vein grafts was 6.9 ± 4.2 cm. An unplanned return to the operation room occurred in 32 cases (10.4%) and failure of the flap in 12 patients (3.9%). Binary logistic regression found a significant association between flap compromise and loss rates and length of IVG, hypertension, prior radiation, and neck dissection. In the multiple regression model, length of IVG and prior radiation significantly influenced the outcomes. Thirty‐nine patients underwent reconstruction with a long IVG (&gt;10 cm). Twenty‐six patients underwent surgical reconstruction with radial forearm flap as a VBF. The rate of flap compromise was higher in the group with a long IVG (P = .01). Conclusions In head and neck free flap reconstruction, the length of IVGs and history of radiotherapy are associated with flap compromise and loss. In case of long distance between the pedicle and the recipient site, the use of a VBF bridge should be considered as a safe alternative.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1043-3074</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-0347</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/hed.25767</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30968501</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>bridge flap ; Bridges ; flow‐through vascular flap ; Forearm ; Head and neck ; head and neck reconstruction ; microvascular free flap ; Radiation therapy ; Reconstructive surgery ; vein graft</subject><ispartof>Head &amp; neck, 2019-09, Vol.41 (9), p.2914-2920</ispartof><rights>2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3537-e7eb908399a8999451c3137ac647fcdd731c2d78c623e33334fd3239be909d4c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3537-e7eb908399a8999451c3137ac647fcdd731c2d78c623e33334fd3239be909d4c3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6094-5159 ; 0000-0002-3014-2419</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fhed.25767$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fhed.25767$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,27905,27906,45555,45556</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30968501$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Di Taranto, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Shih‐Heng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elia, Rossella</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sitpahul, Ngamcherd</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chan, Jeffrey C. Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Losco, Luigi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cigna, Emanuele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ribuffo, Diego</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Hung‐Chi</creatorcontrib><title>Outcomes following head neck free flap reconstruction requiring interposition vein graft or vascular bridge flap</title><title>Head &amp; neck</title><addtitle>Head Neck</addtitle><description>Background Interposition vein grafts (IVG) and vascular bridge flaps (VBF) have been exploited as vascular conduit in challenging head and neck reconstructions. Methods A retrospective review was conducted on 6025 flaps. The effect of patients' characteristics and length of IVG on flap compromise and loss were analyzed. Comparison between IVG and VBF was performed. Results The flap compromise and loss rates for the overall group were 8.2% and 3.2%, respectively. An IVG was used in 309 free flaps. The average length of the vein grafts was 6.9 ± 4.2 cm. An unplanned return to the operation room occurred in 32 cases (10.4%) and failure of the flap in 12 patients (3.9%). Binary logistic regression found a significant association between flap compromise and loss rates and length of IVG, hypertension, prior radiation, and neck dissection. In the multiple regression model, length of IVG and prior radiation significantly influenced the outcomes. Thirty‐nine patients underwent reconstruction with a long IVG (&gt;10 cm). Twenty‐six patients underwent surgical reconstruction with radial forearm flap as a VBF. The rate of flap compromise was higher in the group with a long IVG (P = .01). Conclusions In head and neck free flap reconstruction, the length of IVGs and history of radiotherapy are associated with flap compromise and loss. In case of long distance between the pedicle and the recipient site, the use of a VBF bridge should be considered as a safe alternative.</description><subject>bridge flap</subject><subject>Bridges</subject><subject>flow‐through vascular flap</subject><subject>Forearm</subject><subject>Head and neck</subject><subject>head and neck reconstruction</subject><subject>microvascular free flap</subject><subject>Radiation therapy</subject><subject>Reconstructive surgery</subject><subject>vein graft</subject><issn>1043-3074</issn><issn>1097-0347</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kE1PwjAYgBujEUUP_gHTxJOHQb9Y16NRFBMSLnpeSvcOqmMd7Sbh31sYHu2l7Zsnz5s8CN1RMqKEsPEaihGbyFSeoStKlEwIF_L88BY84USKAboO4YsQwlPBLtGAE5VmE0KvULPoWuM2EHDpqsrtbL3Ca9AFrsF849ID4LLSDfZgXB1a35nWujp-t531B9jWLfjGBXuc_4Ct8crrssXO4x8dTFdpj5feFqvedIMuSl0FuD3dQ_T5Ov14niXzxdv789M8MXzCZQISlopkXCmdKaXEhBpOudQmFbI0RSE5NayQmUkZBx6PKAvOuFqCIqoQhg_RQ-9tvNt2ENr8y3W-jitzxiSjWUwkIvXYU8a7EDyUeePtRvt9Tkl-aJvHtvmxbWTvT8ZuuYnTP_IvZgTGPbCzFez_N-Wz6Uuv_AU3TYQ5</recordid><startdate>201909</startdate><enddate>201909</enddate><creator>Di Taranto, Giuseppe</creator><creator>Chen, Shih‐Heng</creator><creator>Elia, Rossella</creator><creator>Sitpahul, Ngamcherd</creator><creator>Chan, Jeffrey C. Y.</creator><creator>Losco, Luigi</creator><creator>Cigna, Emanuele</creator><creator>Ribuffo, Diego</creator><creator>Chen, Hung‐Chi</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>K9.</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6094-5159</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3014-2419</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201909</creationdate><title>Outcomes following head neck free flap reconstruction requiring interposition vein graft or vascular bridge flap</title><author>Di Taranto, Giuseppe ; Chen, Shih‐Heng ; Elia, Rossella ; Sitpahul, Ngamcherd ; Chan, Jeffrey C. Y. ; Losco, Luigi ; Cigna, Emanuele ; Ribuffo, Diego ; Chen, Hung‐Chi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3537-e7eb908399a8999451c3137ac647fcdd731c2d78c623e33334fd3239be909d4c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>bridge flap</topic><topic>Bridges</topic><topic>flow‐through vascular flap</topic><topic>Forearm</topic><topic>Head and neck</topic><topic>head and neck reconstruction</topic><topic>microvascular free flap</topic><topic>Radiation therapy</topic><topic>Reconstructive surgery</topic><topic>vein graft</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Di Taranto, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Shih‐Heng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elia, Rossella</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sitpahul, Ngamcherd</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chan, Jeffrey C. Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Losco, Luigi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cigna, Emanuele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ribuffo, Diego</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Hung‐Chi</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>Head &amp; neck</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Di Taranto, Giuseppe</au><au>Chen, Shih‐Heng</au><au>Elia, Rossella</au><au>Sitpahul, Ngamcherd</au><au>Chan, Jeffrey C. Y.</au><au>Losco, Luigi</au><au>Cigna, Emanuele</au><au>Ribuffo, Diego</au><au>Chen, Hung‐Chi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Outcomes following head neck free flap reconstruction requiring interposition vein graft or vascular bridge flap</atitle><jtitle>Head &amp; neck</jtitle><addtitle>Head Neck</addtitle><date>2019-09</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>2914</spage><epage>2920</epage><pages>2914-2920</pages><issn>1043-3074</issn><eissn>1097-0347</eissn><abstract>Background Interposition vein grafts (IVG) and vascular bridge flaps (VBF) have been exploited as vascular conduit in challenging head and neck reconstructions. Methods A retrospective review was conducted on 6025 flaps. The effect of patients' characteristics and length of IVG on flap compromise and loss were analyzed. Comparison between IVG and VBF was performed. Results The flap compromise and loss rates for the overall group were 8.2% and 3.2%, respectively. An IVG was used in 309 free flaps. The average length of the vein grafts was 6.9 ± 4.2 cm. An unplanned return to the operation room occurred in 32 cases (10.4%) and failure of the flap in 12 patients (3.9%). Binary logistic regression found a significant association between flap compromise and loss rates and length of IVG, hypertension, prior radiation, and neck dissection. In the multiple regression model, length of IVG and prior radiation significantly influenced the outcomes. Thirty‐nine patients underwent reconstruction with a long IVG (&gt;10 cm). Twenty‐six patients underwent surgical reconstruction with radial forearm flap as a VBF. The rate of flap compromise was higher in the group with a long IVG (P = .01). Conclusions In head and neck free flap reconstruction, the length of IVGs and history of radiotherapy are associated with flap compromise and loss. In case of long distance between the pedicle and the recipient site, the use of a VBF bridge should be considered as a safe alternative.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>30968501</pmid><doi>10.1002/hed.25767</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6094-5159</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3014-2419</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1043-3074
ispartof Head & neck, 2019-09, Vol.41 (9), p.2914-2920
issn 1043-3074
1097-0347
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2272183474
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects bridge flap
Bridges
flow‐through vascular flap
Forearm
Head and neck
head and neck reconstruction
microvascular free flap
Radiation therapy
Reconstructive surgery
vein graft
title Outcomes following head neck free flap reconstruction requiring interposition vein graft or vascular bridge flap
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T09%3A37%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Outcomes%20following%20head%20neck%20free%20flap%20reconstruction%20requiring%20interposition%20vein%20graft%20or%20vascular%20bridge%20flap&rft.jtitle=Head%20&%20neck&rft.au=Di%20Taranto,%20Giuseppe&rft.date=2019-09&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=2914&rft.epage=2920&rft.pages=2914-2920&rft.issn=1043-3074&rft.eissn=1097-0347&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/hed.25767&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2272183474%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2272183474&rft_id=info:pmid/30968501&rfr_iscdi=true