A Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Based on Muscle versus Fasciocutaneous Flaps in Scalp Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Journal of reconstructive microsurgery Pub Date : 2024-08-27 DOI:10.1055/a-2404-2539
Eloise W Stanton, Asli Pekcan, Idean Roohani, Deborah Choe, Joseph Nicholas Carey, David Daar
{"title":"A Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Based on Muscle versus Fasciocutaneous Flaps in Scalp Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Eloise W Stanton, Asli Pekcan, Idean Roohani, Deborah Choe, Joseph Nicholas Carey, David Daar","doi":"10.1055/a-2404-2539","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Scalp reconstruction in plastic and reconstructive surgery often necessitates the transfer of soft tissue flaps to restore form and function. The critical decision lies in choosing between muscle-containing (MC) and fasciocutaneous (FC) flaps for scalp reconstruction, and while both variants have their merits, flap composition remains a subject of ongoing debate. This scientific discussion aims to explore this contentious issue through a comprehensive meta-analysis, shedding light on the rationale behind the choice of these flaps and the potential impact on clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive systematic review was conducted following PRISMA-P guidelines, encompassing six prominent databases up to the year 2023. Data were collected from studies assessing outcomes of MC and FC flaps for scalp reconstruction. Quality evaluation was performed using ASPS criteria and the ROBINS-I tool. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, and assessment of bias using STATA software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis included 28 non-randomized studies, totaling 594 flaps (380 MC, 214 FC). MC flaps were significantly larger than FC flaps. There were no significant differences in flap loss, flap necrosis, or wound dehiscence between the two flap types. However, the incidence of venous congestion was significantly higher in FC flaps. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of results, and publication bias assessment showed no significant evidence of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While both MC and FC flaps offer viable options for scalp reconstruction, the choice should be tailored to individual patient characteristics and defect size. FC flaps may provide advantages such as shorter operative times and reduced morbidity, whereas MC flaps could be preferred for addressing larger defects. Future research should focus on prospective studies and strategies to mitigate venous congestion in FC flaps, enhancing their safety and efficacy in scalp reconstruction.</p>","PeriodicalId":16949,"journal":{"name":"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","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-2404-2539","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

Abstract

Introduction: Scalp reconstruction in plastic and reconstructive surgery often necessitates the transfer of soft tissue flaps to restore form and function. The critical decision lies in choosing between muscle-containing (MC) and fasciocutaneous (FC) flaps for scalp reconstruction, and while both variants have their merits, flap composition remains a subject of ongoing debate. This scientific discussion aims to explore this contentious issue through a comprehensive meta-analysis, shedding light on the rationale behind the choice of these flaps and the potential impact on clinical outcomes.

Methods: A comprehensive systematic review was conducted following PRISMA-P guidelines, encompassing six prominent databases up to the year 2023. Data were collected from studies assessing outcomes of MC and FC flaps for scalp reconstruction. Quality evaluation was performed using ASPS criteria and the ROBINS-I tool. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, and assessment of bias using STATA software.

Results: The meta-analysis included 28 non-randomized studies, totaling 594 flaps (380 MC, 214 FC). MC flaps were significantly larger than FC flaps. There were no significant differences in flap loss, flap necrosis, or wound dehiscence between the two flap types. However, the incidence of venous congestion was significantly higher in FC flaps. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of results, and publication bias assessment showed no significant evidence of bias.

Conclusions: While both MC and FC flaps offer viable options for scalp reconstruction, the choice should be tailored to individual patient characteristics and defect size. FC flaps may provide advantages such as shorter operative times and reduced morbidity, whereas MC flaps could be preferred for addressing larger defects. Future research should focus on prospective studies and strategies to mitigate venous congestion in FC flaps, enhancing their safety and efficacy in scalp reconstruction.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
头皮重建中肌肉皮瓣与筋膜皮瓣术后效果的比较:系统综述与元分析》。
导言:整形外科的头皮重建通常需要转移软组织皮瓣来恢复形态和功能。选择含肌肉(MC)皮瓣还是筋膜皮(FC)皮瓣进行头皮重建是一个关键的决定因素,虽然这两种皮瓣都有各自的优点,但皮瓣的组成仍然是一个争论不休的话题。本科学讨论旨在通过全面的荟萃分析探讨这一争议性问题,阐明选择这些皮瓣的理由以及对临床结果的潜在影响:方法:按照 PRISMA-P 指南进行了一项全面的系统性综述,包括截至 2023 年的六个著名数据库。数据收集自对头皮重建中MC和FC皮瓣疗效进行评估的研究。采用 ASPS 标准和 ROBINS-I 工具进行质量评估。统计分析包括描述性统计、荟萃分析、敏感性分析以及使用 STATA 软件进行的偏倚评估:荟萃分析包括 28 项非随机研究,共计 594 个皮瓣(380 个 MC 皮瓣,214 个 FC 皮瓣)。MC皮瓣明显大于FC皮瓣。两种皮瓣类型在皮瓣脱落、皮瓣坏死或伤口开裂方面没有明显差异。不过,FC皮瓣的静脉充血发生率明显更高。敏感性分析证实了结果的稳健性,发表偏倚评估显示没有明显的偏倚证据:虽然MC和FC皮瓣都能为头皮重建提供可行的选择,但应根据患者的个体特征和缺损大小进行选择。FC皮瓣可能具有手术时间短、发病率低等优点,而MC皮瓣则更适合用于较大的缺损。未来的研究重点应放在前瞻性研究和减轻FC皮瓣静脉充血的策略上,以提高其在头皮重建中的安全性和有效性。
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 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.
期刊最新文献
Flap-Based Reconstruction in Patients with Autoimmune Disease: An Institutional Experience with the Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap and Review of the Literature. Free Latissimus Dorsi Flaps in Head and Neck Reconstruction at a Modern High-Volume Microsurgery Center. Trends in Hospital Billing for Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Procedures from 2013 to 2020. Deep Circumflex Iliac Artery-vascularized Iliac Bone Graft for Femoral Head Osteonecrosis: Computed Tomography Anatomical Study. DIEP Donor Site Satisfaction between Patients with and without History of Pregnancy.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1