Quantifying the Limitations of Clinical and Technology-based Flap Monitoring Strategies using a Systematic Thematic Analysis. Issue 7 (12th July 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kwasnicki, Richard M.; Noakes, Alex J.; Banhidy, Norbert; Hettiaratchy, Shehan
• Is Part Of: Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Volume 9:Issue 7(2021)
• Page Start: e3663
• Publication Date: 2021-07-12
• Subjects: Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; 617.95205
• DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003663
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2169-7574

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Multiple techniques exist to monitor free flap viability postoperatively, varying with practical and personal preference, yet the limitations of each technique remain unquantified. This systematic review aims to identify the most commonly reported limitations of these techniques in clinical practice. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science with search criteria for postoperative free flap monitoring techniques. Search results were independently screened using defined criteria by two authors and a senior clinician. Limitations of the techniques found in the discussion section of eligible articles were recorded and categorized using thematic analysis. Results: A total of 4699 records were identified. In total, 2210 articles met the eligibility criteria and were subsequently reviewed, with 195 papers included in the final analysis. The most frequently reported limitations of clinical monitoring were interpretation requiring expertise (25% of related papers), unsuitability for buried flaps (21%), and lack of quantitative/objective values (19%). For noninvasive technologies, the limitations were lack of quantitative/objective values (21%), cost (16%), and interpretation requiring expertise (13%). For invasive technologies, the limitations were application requiring expertise (25%), equipment design and malfunction (13%), and cost (13%). Conclusions: This is the first systematic review to quantify the limitations of different flap monitoring techniques, as reported in the literature. This information may enhance the choice in monitoring strategy for a reconstructive service, and inform the development and refinement of new flap monitoring technologies.