Page 137 - Read Online
P. 137

Foppiani et al. Plast Aesthet Res 2023;10:53  https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2347-9264.2022.137   Page 9 of 14

               Table 3. Outcomes of thermography vs. oximetry monitoring
                >Complication rates   Number of studies   Total             Prevalence [95%CI]     I  (%)
                                                                                                   2
                                                          Threatened flaps
                Overall               14                  206/3,289         0.06 [0.03, 0.11]      91%
                Thermography          3                   14/95             0.10 [0.02, 0.42]      0%
                Oximetry              11                  192/3,194         0.05 [0.03, 0.10]      92%
                                                          Partial flap loss
                Overall               14                  37/3,289          0.01 [0.00; 0.03]      28%
                Thermography          3                   9/95              0.01 [0.00, 0.73]      0%
                Oximetry              11                  28/3,194          0.01 [0.00, 0.02]      100%
                                                          Complete flap loss
                Overall               14                  15/3,289          0.00 [0.00; 0.01]      0%
                Thermography          3                   0/95              0.00 [0.00, 1.00]      0%
                Oximetry              11                  15/3,194          0.00 [0.00, 0.01]      0%
                                                          Necrosis
                Overall               8                   158/1,802         0.03 [0.01, 0.12]      77%
                Thermography          3                   10/95             0.04 [0.00, 0.36]      60%
                Oximetry              5                   148/1,707         0.03 [0.01, 0.13]      78%
                                                          Congestion
                Overall               8                   37/1,527          0.02 [0.01, 0.04]      38%
                Thermography          2                   3/63              0.03 [0.00, 0.29]      0%
                Oximetry              6                   34/1,464          0.02 [0.01, 0.04]      25%
                                                          Hematoma
                Overall               9                   62/2,427          0.03 [0.02, 0.03]      0%
                Thermography          2                   0/63              0.00 [0.00, 1.00]      0%
                Oximetry              7                   62/2,364          0.03 [0.02, 0.03]      0%
                                                          Infection
                Overall               6                   67/1,803          0.01 [0.00, 0.13]      1%
                Thermography          2                   5/63              0.04 [0.00, 0.56]      0%
                Oximetry              4                   62/1,740          0.01 [0.00, 0.16]      0%
                                                          Return to OR
                Overall               10                  179/2,504         0.05 [0.02, 0.09]      87%
                Thermography          2                   9/95              0.01 [0.00, 0.73]      0%
                Oximetry              8                   170/2,409         0.05 [0.03, 0.09]      87%
                                                          Rate of salvage
                Overall               10                  190/3,171         0.06 [0.03, 0.11]      94%
                Thermography          2                   14/62             0.23 [0.14, 0.35]      12%
                Oximetry              8                   176/3,109         0.12 [0.05, 0.33]      94%

               OR: operating room.

               may have their roles as efficacious monitoring tools to identify and prompt successful interventions in
               breast microvascular reconstruction. Compared to the existing literature, both sub-groups of studies
               included in this meta-analysis show better outcomes for partial and complete flap loss rates. Indeed, the
               literature reports partial flap loss in up to 9% of patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction and
               complete flap loss in less than 5% of patients [1-10,33,34] . If not for the postoperative monitoring in each of our
               studies, it could be hypothesized that a larger proportion of patients who had partial flap failure would have
               progressed to total flap failure instead. Noninvasive, postoperative monitoring of breast flaps provides
               plastic surgeons a chance to identify threatened flaps before they show physical signs of distress and require
   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142