优化DIEP皮瓣重建供体部位的发病率:减少前筋膜缺损的进展-一项系统综述。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Diwakar Phuyal, Isaac Mordukhovich, James Gaston, Arturo J Rios-Diaz, Osama Darras, Rommy Obeid, Risal Djohan, Graham Schwarz, Raffi Gurunian, Sarah N Bishop
{"title":"优化DIEP皮瓣重建供体部位的发病率:减少前筋膜缺损的进展-一项系统综述。","authors":"Diwakar Phuyal, Isaac Mordukhovich, James Gaston, Arturo J Rios-Diaz, Osama Darras, Rommy Obeid, Risal Djohan, Graham Schwarz, Raffi Gurunian, Sarah N Bishop","doi":"10.1055/a-2659-6939","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Numerous minimally invasive deep inferior epigastric perforator flap (MI-DIEP) techniques have been described in the literature to reduce donor site morbidities. This systematic review aimed to summarize existing MI-DIEP techniques and postoperative outcomes relative to conventional harvest (cDIEP).A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines to include articles with novel DIEP harvesting techniques. Studies without perioperative information were excluded. Chi-square and Fisher's exact test were used to compare complication rates (partial flap loss, total flap loss, hernia or bulge, and fat necrosis) in MI-DIEP with cDIEP. Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool was used for bias assessment.A total of 978 patients underwent 1,272 MI-DIEP flap harvests across 17 studies. Techniques included robotic DIEP (rDIEP; <i>n</i> = 97), abdominal perforator exchange (APEX; <i>n</i> = 158), laparoscopic (<i>n</i> = 39), endoscopic (<i>n</i> = 94), two-staged delayed DIEP (<i>n</i> = 135), short fasciotomy (<i>n</i> = 124), short pedicle (<i>n</i> = 26), vascular pedicle measuring (<i>n</i> = 209), and microfascial incision (<i>n</i> = 81). No significant differences were found between endoscopic, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches compared with cDIEP. However, the short pedicle technique had higher partial flap loss (8.82% vs. 1.98%, <i>p</i> = 0.04), while APEX and vascular pedicle measuring techniques had lower fat necrosis rates (1.99% and 0.48% vs. 5.81%, <i>p</i> = 0.04 and 0.004 respectively). Short fasciotomy was associated with higher fat necrosis (12.9% vs. 5.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.004) and longer hospital stay (<i>p</i> = 0.005). Robotic, laparoscopic, endoscopic, two-staged, and APEX techniques were associated with shorter hospital stays, and rDIEP was linked to reduced postoperative day 1 pain (<i>p</i> < 0.001).MI-DIEP techniques demonstrate comparable complication rates to cDIEP, with certain methods offering benefits such as reduced fat necrosis, shorter hospital stays, and less postoperative pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":16949,"journal":{"name":"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimizing Donor Site Morbidity in DIEP Flap Reconstruction: Advancements in Minimizing Anterior Fascial Defects: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Diwakar Phuyal, Isaac Mordukhovich, James Gaston, Arturo J Rios-Diaz, Osama Darras, Rommy Obeid, Risal Djohan, Graham Schwarz, Raffi Gurunian, Sarah N Bishop\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2659-6939\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Numerous minimally invasive deep inferior epigastric perforator flap (MI-DIEP) techniques have been described in the literature to reduce donor site morbidities. This systematic review aimed to summarize existing MI-DIEP techniques and postoperative outcomes relative to conventional harvest (cDIEP).A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines to include articles with novel DIEP harvesting techniques. Studies without perioperative information were excluded. Chi-square and Fisher's exact test were used to compare complication rates (partial flap loss, total flap loss, hernia or bulge, and fat necrosis) in MI-DIEP with cDIEP. Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool was used for bias assessment.A total of 978 patients underwent 1,272 MI-DIEP flap harvests across 17 studies. Techniques included robotic DIEP (rDIEP; <i>n</i> = 97), abdominal perforator exchange (APEX; <i>n</i> = 158), laparoscopic (<i>n</i> = 39), endoscopic (<i>n</i> = 94), two-staged delayed DIEP (<i>n</i> = 135), short fasciotomy (<i>n</i> = 124), short pedicle (<i>n</i> = 26), vascular pedicle measuring (<i>n</i> = 209), and microfascial incision (<i>n</i> = 81). No significant differences were found between endoscopic, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches compared with cDIEP. However, the short pedicle technique had higher partial flap loss (8.82% vs. 1.98%, <i>p</i> = 0.04), while APEX and vascular pedicle measuring techniques had lower fat necrosis rates (1.99% and 0.48% vs. 5.81%, <i>p</i> = 0.04 and 0.004 respectively). Short fasciotomy was associated with higher fat necrosis (12.9% vs. 5.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.004) and longer hospital stay (<i>p</i> = 0.005). Robotic, laparoscopic, endoscopic, two-staged, and APEX techniques were associated with shorter hospital stays, and rDIEP was linked to reduced postoperative day 1 pain (<i>p</i> < 0.001).MI-DIEP techniques demonstrate comparable complication rates to cDIEP, with certain methods offering benefits such as reduced fat necrosis, shorter hospital stays, and less postoperative pain.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16949,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2659-6939\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2659-6939","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

文献中描述了许多微创上腹部下深穿支皮瓣(MI-DIEP)技术,以减少供区发病率。本系统综述旨在总结现有的MI-DIEP技术和相对于传统收获(cDIEP)的术后结果。方法根据PRISMA指南进行系统综述,纳入新的DIEP收获技术的文章。没有围手术期信息的研究被排除。采用卡方和费舍尔精确检验比较MI-DIEP与cDIEP的并发症发生率(部分皮瓣丢失、全皮瓣丢失、疝或鼓包、脂肪坏死)。采用乔安娜布里格斯研究所(Joanna Briggs Institute, JBI)的批判性评估工具进行偏倚评估。结果17项研究共978例患者行1272例MI-DIEP皮瓣切除术。技术包括机器人DIEP (rDIEP) (n=97)、腹穿支交换(APEX) (n=158)、腹腔镜(n=39)、内镜(n=94)、两阶段延迟DIEP (n=135)、短筋膜切开术(n=124)、短蒂(n=26)、血管蒂测量(n=209)和微筋膜切口(n=81)。与cDIEP相比,内窥镜、腹腔镜和机器人入路没有显著差异。然而,短蒂技术的部分皮瓣损失较高(8.82% vs 1.98%, p=0.04),而APEX和血管蒂测量技术的脂肪坏死率较低(1.99%和0.48% vs 5.81%, p=0.04和0.004)。短筋膜切开术与较高的脂肪坏死(12.9% vs 5.8%, p=0.004)和较长的住院时间相关(p=0.005)。机器人、腹腔镜、内窥镜、两阶段和APEX技术与更短的住院时间有关,机器人DIEP与减少术后第1天疼痛有关
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Optimizing Donor Site Morbidity in DIEP Flap Reconstruction: Advancements in Minimizing Anterior Fascial Defects: A Systematic Review.

Numerous minimally invasive deep inferior epigastric perforator flap (MI-DIEP) techniques have been described in the literature to reduce donor site morbidities. This systematic review aimed to summarize existing MI-DIEP techniques and postoperative outcomes relative to conventional harvest (cDIEP).A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines to include articles with novel DIEP harvesting techniques. Studies without perioperative information were excluded. Chi-square and Fisher's exact test were used to compare complication rates (partial flap loss, total flap loss, hernia or bulge, and fat necrosis) in MI-DIEP with cDIEP. Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool was used for bias assessment.A total of 978 patients underwent 1,272 MI-DIEP flap harvests across 17 studies. Techniques included robotic DIEP (rDIEP; n = 97), abdominal perforator exchange (APEX; n = 158), laparoscopic (n = 39), endoscopic (n = 94), two-staged delayed DIEP (n = 135), short fasciotomy (n = 124), short pedicle (n = 26), vascular pedicle measuring (n = 209), and microfascial incision (n = 81). No significant differences were found between endoscopic, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches compared with cDIEP. However, the short pedicle technique had higher partial flap loss (8.82% vs. 1.98%, p = 0.04), while APEX and vascular pedicle measuring techniques had lower fat necrosis rates (1.99% and 0.48% vs. 5.81%, p = 0.04 and 0.004 respectively). Short fasciotomy was associated with higher fat necrosis (12.9% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.004) and longer hospital stay (p = 0.005). Robotic, laparoscopic, endoscopic, two-staged, and APEX techniques were associated with shorter hospital stays, and rDIEP was linked to reduced postoperative day 1 pain (p < 0.001).MI-DIEP techniques demonstrate comparable complication rates to cDIEP, with certain methods offering benefits such as reduced fat necrosis, shorter hospital stays, and less postoperative pain.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
28.60%
发文量
80
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery is a peer-reviewed, indexed journal that provides an international forum for the publication of articles focusing on reconstructive microsurgery and complex reconstructive surgery. The journal was originally established in 1984 for the microsurgical community to publish and share academic papers. The Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery provides the latest in original research spanning basic laboratory, translational, and clinical investigations. Review papers cover current topics in complex reconstruction and microsurgery. In addition, special sections discuss new technologies, innovations, materials, and significant problem cases. The journal welcomes controversial topics, editorial comments, book reviews, and letters to the Editor, in order to complete the balanced spectrum of information available in the Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery. All articles undergo stringent peer review by international experts in the specialty.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信