We aim to define a set of terms for common free flap complications with evidence-based descriptions.
Clinical consensus surveys were conducted among a panel of head and neck/reconstructive surgeons (N = 11). A content validity index for relevancy and clarity for each item was computed and adjusted for chance agreement (modified kappa, K). Items with K < 0.74 for relevancy (i.e., ratings of \"good\" or \"fair\") were eliminated.
Five out of nineteen terms scored K < 0.74. Eliminated terms included \"vascular compromise\"; \"cellulitis\"; \"surgical site abscess\"; \"malocclusion\"; and \"non- or mal-union.\" Terms that achieved consensus were \"total/partial free flap failure\"; \"free flap takeback\"; \"arterial thrombosis\"; \"venous thrombosis\"; \"revision of microvascular anastomosis\"; \"fistula\"; \"wound dehiscence\"; \"hematoma\"; \"seroma\"; \"partial skin graft failure\"; \"total skin graft failure\"; \"exposed hardware or bone\"; and \"hardware failure.\"
Standardized reporting would encourage multi-institutional research collaboration, larger scale quality improvement initiatives, the ability to set risk-adjusted benchmarks, and enhance education and communication.

Marko Godina in his landmark paper in 1986 established the principle of early flap coverage for reconstruction of traumatic lower extremity injuries to minimize edema, fibrosis, and infection while optimizing outcomes. However, with the evolution of microsurgery and wound management, there is emerging evidence that timing of reconstruction is not as critical as once believed. Multidisciplinary care with a combined orthopedic and reconstructive approach is more critical for timely and appropriate definite treatment for severe lower extremity injuries.

Pyoderma gangrenosum following free tissue transfer for breast reconstruction is rare. This unusual ulcerative condition is frequently misdiagnosed, leading to inappropriate debridement and escalation of the subsequent wound through pathergy. Once diagnosed, treatment with immunosuppressive agents, including corticosteroids, results in an initial rapid response, but prolonged treatment is required. There is a paucity of literature regarding how to approach future surgery.
This was a retrospective case review from a single center over a 17-year period. All patients diagnosed with postsurgical pyoderma gangrenosum after free tissue transfer from the abdomen for breast reconstruction were included.
Of 456 free tissue transfers from the abdomen for breast reconstruction, 8 women who underwent 13 free flaps were diagnosed with postsurgical pyoderma gangrenosum in 10 flaps. The surgeries performed included transverse rectus abdominis muscle (n = 5), deep inferior epigastric perforator (n = 4) and superficial inferior epigastric artery (n = 4) flaps. Mean age at diagnosis was 52.8 years, and 3 patients had preexisting autoimmune conditions: type 2 diabetes mellitus, dermatomyositis, and Graves disease. The mean time of presentation of wound symptoms was 3.9 days after surgery, and mean time diagnosis was made was 9.4 days.
Pyoderma gangrenosum after autologous breast reconstruction is a rare, but serious, complication that is worsened by misdiagnosis and inappropriate debridement. We present a case series of 8 patients and emphasize the importance of early recognition and treatment with immune suppression. We include a treatment algorithm to manage these patients, once the diagnosis is suspected. Future surgery can be considered with a fully informed patient and careful collaboration with dermatology colleagues.

Comparing accuracy results for mandibular reconstructions using computer-assisted surgery (CAS) is limited due to heterogeneity in image acquisition, extent of mandibular resection, and evaluation methodologies between studies. We propose a practical, feasible and reproducible guideline for standardizing evaluation methods to allow valid comparisons of postoperative results and facilitate meta-analyses in the future. It offers a guide to imaging, data comparison, volume assessment of 3-dimensional models, classification of defects, and it also contains a quantitative accuracy evaluation method.

Locoregional recurrent/persistent head and neck cancer following primary treatment is a significant challenge as it is usually difficult to treat and has worse outcomes compared to the primary setting. Surgical resection of a local or regional recurrence offers the best chance of cure when feasible. Local recurrence outcomes vary by subsite with laryngeal recurrences having the best prognoses and hypopharynx having the worst. Instances of persistent neck masses following primary nonsurgical treatment can be evaluated with positron emission tomography (PET) with CT (PET-CT) when there is no definitive diagnosis of a recurrence/persistence. Reirradiation with or without chemotherapy can be considered for primary treatment when surgery is not an option, for adjuvant treatment following salvage surgery, or for palliation. Immunotherapy represents a newer class of chemotherapeutic agents. Current guidelines recommend enrollment in clinical trials especially when surgery is not an option as outcomes remain universally poor in the recurrent/persistent setting.

Male genital emergencies relating to the penis and scrotum are rare and require prompt investigation and surgical intervention. Clinicians are often unfamiliar with the management of these conditions and may not work in a specialist centre with on-site expertise in genitourethral surgery. A series of consensus statements have been developed by an expert consensus committee comprising members of the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Section of Andrology and Genitourethral Surgery together with experts from urology units throughout the UK. Penile amputation is a rare genital emergency, which requires prompt intervention and microsurgical reconstruction. The consensus statements will outline the management of these cases for non-specialist units, as well as recommendations for reconstruction for specialists.

This is the official guideline endorsed by the specialty associations involved in the care of head and neck cancer patients in the UK. The reconstructive needs following ablative surgery for head and neck cancer are unique and require close attention to both form and function. The vast experience accrued with microvascular reconstructive surgery has meant a significant expansion in the options available. This paper discusses the options for reconstruction available following ablative surgery for head and neck cancer and offers recommendations for reconstruction in the various settings. Recommendations • Microsurgical free flap reconstruction should be the primary reconstructive option for most defects of the head and neck that need tissue transfer. (R) • Free flaps should be offered as first choice of reconstruction for all patients needing circumferential pharyngoesophageal reconstruction. (R) • Free flap reconstruction should be offered for patients with class III or higher defects of the maxilla. (R) • Composite free tissue transfer should be offered as first choice to all patients needing mandibular reconstruction. (R) • Patients undergoing salvage total laryngectomy should be offered vascularised flap reconstruction to reduce pharyngocutaneous fistula rates. (R).

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism encompasses a spectrum of disease, ranging from asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis to fatal pulmonary embolism. As microsurgical techniques increase in complexity, the overriding benefit from a microsurgical versus a venous thromboembolism prophylactic regimen remains unclear. This study evaluated the current recommendations and procedure-specific strategies for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis with a focus on the utility of prophylaxis in microsurgical procedures.
METHODS: A review was performed to identify all articles discussing the rates of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing microsurgical procedures. Data were summarized based on body area, including hand, breast, lower extremity, and head and neck. Guidelines for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in microsurgical cases were established.
RESULTS: The available studies demonstrate a reduction in postoperative venous thromboembolism. Unfortunately, chemoprophylaxis continues to be underused throughout plastic surgery, amid concern over the risk of bleeding complications. Based on the best available data, the use of mechanical and chemoprophylaxis should be strongly considered in all microsurgical cases. A preoperative screening algorithm based on a risk-assessment model should be used in all cases to preoperatively characterize and modify risk factors when possible, and plan for perioperative prophylaxis.
CONCLUSIONS: Although not completely preventable, venous thromboembolism risks can be reduced with careful preoperative planning and medical history and the judicious use of chemoprophylaxis. Because there does not appear to be an increase in the rate of postoperative bleeding when prophylaxis is administered appropriately, the use of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis should be considered in all microsurgery patients except those at extremely high risk of bleeding.

Head and neck cancers often require complex, labor-intensive surgeries, especially when free flap reconstruction is required. Enhanced recovery is important in this patient population but evidence-based protocols on perioperative care for this population are lacking.
To provide a consensus-based protocol for optimal perioperative care of patients undergoing head and neck cancer surgery with free flap reconstruction.
Following endorsement by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society to develop this protocol, a systematic review was conducted for each topic. The PubMed and Cochrane databases were initially searched to identify relevant publications on head and neck cancer surgery from 1965 through April 2015. Consistent key words for each topic included \"head and neck surgery,\" \"pharyngectomy,\" \"laryngectomy,\" \"laryngopharyngectomy,\" \"neck dissection,\" \"parotid lymphadenectomy,\" \"thyroidectomy,\" \"oral cavity resection,\" \"glossectomy,\" and \"head and neck.\" The final selection of literature included meta-analyses and systematic reviews as well as randomized controlled trials where available. In the absence of high-level data, case series and nonrandomized studies in head and neck cancer surgery patients or randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in non-head and neck cancer surgery patients, were considered. An international panel of experts in major head and neck cancer surgery and enhanced recovery after surgery reviewed and assessed the literature for quality and developed recommendations for each topic based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. All recommendations were graded following a consensus discussion among the expert panel.
The literature search, including a hand search of reference lists, identified 215 relevant publications that were considered to be the best evidence for the topic areas. A total of 17 topic areas were identified for inclusion in the protocol for the perioperative care of patients undergoing major head and neck cancer surgery with free flap reconstruction. Best practice includes several elements of perioperative care. Among these elements are the provision of preoperative carbohydrate treatment, pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, perioperative antibiotics in clean-contaminated procedures, corticosteroid and antiemetic medications, short acting anxiolytics, goal-directed fluid management, opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia, frequent flap monitoring, early mobilization, and the avoidance of preoperative fasting.
The evidence base for specific perioperative care elements in head and neck cancer surgery is variable and in many cases information from different surgerical procedures form the basis for these recommendations. Clinical evaluation of these recommendations is a logical next step and further research in this patient population is warranted.

暂无摘要。