Patients' experience of the monitoring of free flaps after reconstruction for oral cancer. Issue 10 (December 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nazir, H.; Lowe, D.; Rogers, S.N.
• Is Part Of: British journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Volume 55:Issue 10(2017)
• Page Start: 1008
• Page End: 1012
• Publication Date: 2017-12
• Subjects: Quality of life -- free flap surgery -- oral cancer -- flap monitoring -- free tissue transfer; Mouth -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; Dentistry, Operative -- Periodicals; Face -- surgery -- Periodicals; Mouth -- surgery -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery, Oral -- Periodicals; Oral Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Dentistry, Operative -- Periodicals; Bouche -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Maxillaire supérieur -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Face -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Chirurgie dentaire -- Périodiques; Dentistry, Operative; Face -- Surgery; Maxilla -- Surgery; Mouth -- Surgery; Surgery, Plastic; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 617.52059
• DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2017.10.005
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0266-4356

Abstract

Abstract: Regular monitoring of free flaps is essential after microvascular free tissue transfer, but the frequency and duration of the observations vary between units and there is no consensus nationally. Best practice can be informed by the feedback of patients, but as we know of no such studies, we did a cross-sectional survey of a consecutive group of patients after free tissue transfer to find out what they thought about monitoring. We designed a study-specific questionnaire after consultation with the patient and carer forum, and sent it to 150 patients who had had free tissue transfer in the maxillofacial department at Aintree University Hospital during 2015 and 2016. A total of 106 (71%) responded, and a quarter (30/106, 28%) would have liked more information about monitoring. Generally, patients were worried little by the observations (91/106, 86%), but one-third (34/106, 32%) reported disturbed sleep. Just over half (n = 55/104, 53%) were relieved when the monitoring changed from hourly to four-hourly, and almost all (99/101, 98%) were not worried by this. Nearly half (47/105, 45%) would have preferred fewer observations when asleep. In conclusion, our findings could help to inform a leaflet for patients about monitoring. Consideration could be given to reducing its frequency, for example, the checks at 1, 3, and 5 am could be omitted during the second night, which could make a substantial difference to the patient. However, its impact on salvage needs to be audited.