"Matched Comparison of Microsurgical Anastomoses Performed with Loupes Magnification Versus Operating Microscope in Traumatic Lower Extremity Reconstruction".

John T. Stranix, S. Azoury, Z-Hye Lee, Geoffrey M. Kozak, N. Plana, V. Thanik, P. Saadeh, J. Levine, L. Levin, S. Kovach
{"title":"\"Matched Comparison of Microsurgical Anastomoses Performed with Loupes Magnification Versus Operating Microscope in Traumatic Lower Extremity Reconstruction\".","authors":"John T. Stranix, S. Azoury, Z-Hye Lee, Geoffrey M. Kozak, N. Plana, V. Thanik, P. Saadeh, J. Levine, L. Levin, S. Kovach","doi":"10.1097/PRS.0000000000006381","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nWhile the surgical microscope remains the most common method for visual magnification for microsurgical anastomoses in free tissue transfer, loupes-only magnification for free flap breast reconstruction has been demonstrated to be safe and effective. In order to evaluate the loupes-only technique in lower extremity free flap reconstruction, we compared perioperative outcomes between microsurgical anastomoses performed with loupes magnification versus a surgical microscope.\n\n\nMETHODS\nTwo-institution retrospective study of soft tissue free flaps for traumatic below-knee reconstruction. Optimal subgroup matching was performed using patient age, defect location, flap type (muscle vs. fasciocutaneous), and time from injury (acute <30 days vs. remote >30 days) for conditional logistic regression analysis of perioperative outcomes.\n\n\nRESULTS\n373 flaps met inclusion criteria for direct matched comparison of anastomoses performed with loupes magnification (n=150) versus a surgical microscope (n=223). Overall major complication rates were 15.3%: takeback for vascular compromise 7.8%, partial flap failure 7.8%, and total flap loss 5.4%. No differences were observed between the loupes and microscope groups in regards to major complications (14.0% vs. 16.1%;OR=0.78(0.38-1.59)), takeback for vascular compromise (5.3% vs. 9.4%;OR=0.51(0.19-1.39)), any flap failure (13.3% vs. 13.0%;OR=1.21(0.56-2.64)), partial flap failure (7.3% vs. 8.1%;OR=1.04(0.43-2.54)), and total flap loss (6.0% vs. 4.9%;OR=1.63(0.42-6.35)).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nPerioperative complication rates, takebacks for vascular compromise, partial flap losses, and total flap failure rates were not significantly different between the matched loupes and microscope groups. Overall microsurgical success rates in traumatic lower extremity free flap reconstruction appear to be independent of the microsurgical technique used for visual magnification.","PeriodicalId":20168,"journal":{"name":"Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006381","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

BACKGROUND While the surgical microscope remains the most common method for visual magnification for microsurgical anastomoses in free tissue transfer, loupes-only magnification for free flap breast reconstruction has been demonstrated to be safe and effective. In order to evaluate the loupes-only technique in lower extremity free flap reconstruction, we compared perioperative outcomes between microsurgical anastomoses performed with loupes magnification versus a surgical microscope. METHODS Two-institution retrospective study of soft tissue free flaps for traumatic below-knee reconstruction. Optimal subgroup matching was performed using patient age, defect location, flap type (muscle vs. fasciocutaneous), and time from injury (acute <30 days vs. remote >30 days) for conditional logistic regression analysis of perioperative outcomes. RESULTS 373 flaps met inclusion criteria for direct matched comparison of anastomoses performed with loupes magnification (n=150) versus a surgical microscope (n=223). Overall major complication rates were 15.3%: takeback for vascular compromise 7.8%, partial flap failure 7.8%, and total flap loss 5.4%. No differences were observed between the loupes and microscope groups in regards to major complications (14.0% vs. 16.1%;OR=0.78(0.38-1.59)), takeback for vascular compromise (5.3% vs. 9.4%;OR=0.51(0.19-1.39)), any flap failure (13.3% vs. 13.0%;OR=1.21(0.56-2.64)), partial flap failure (7.3% vs. 8.1%;OR=1.04(0.43-2.54)), and total flap loss (6.0% vs. 4.9%;OR=1.63(0.42-6.35)). CONCLUSIONS Perioperative complication rates, takebacks for vascular compromise, partial flap losses, and total flap failure rates were not significantly different between the matched loupes and microscope groups. Overall microsurgical success rates in traumatic lower extremity free flap reconstruction appear to be independent of the microsurgical technique used for visual magnification.
“外伤性下肢重建术中放大镜与手术显微镜吻合吻合的对比”。
虽然手术显微镜仍然是游离组织移植中显微外科吻合最常用的视觉放大方法,但仅使用显微镜进行游离皮瓣乳房重建已被证明是安全有效的。为了评估仅使用显微镜的技术在下肢自由皮瓣重建中的应用,我们比较了在显微镜下和在显微镜下进行显微外科吻合的围手术期结果。方法回顾性研究游离软组织皮瓣在创伤性膝下重建中的应用。根据患者年龄、缺损位置、皮瓣类型(肌肉或筋膜皮肤)和损伤时间(急性30天)进行最佳亚组匹配,对围手术期结果进行条件logistic回归分析。结果373个皮瓣符合纳入标准,进行了镜下(n=150)与手术显微镜(n=223)吻合的直接匹配比较。主要并发症的总发生率为15.3%:血管受损的恢复为7.8%,部分皮瓣失败为7.8%,皮瓣全部丢失为5.4%。在主要并发症(14.0% vs. 16.1%;OR=0.78(0.38-1.59))、血管受损的恢复(5.3% vs. 9.4%;OR=0.51(0.19-1.39))、任何皮瓣失败(13.3% vs. 13.0%;OR=1.21(0.56-2.64))、部分皮瓣失败(7.3% vs. 8.1%;OR=1.04(0.43-2.54))和皮瓣全部丢失(6.0% vs. 4.9%;OR=1.63(0.42-6.35))方面,镜下组和显微镜组之间没有差异。结论配镜组与显微镜组手术并发症发生率、血管损伤回收率、部分皮瓣丢失率、皮瓣总失败率无显著性差异。显微外科手术在外伤性下肢游离皮瓣重建中的总体成功率似乎与显微外科技术用于视觉放大无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信