Jose A Foppiani, Dani C Leung, Aneesh Syal, Roan N Anderson, Pedram Zargari, Neej Patel, Nolan Schwarz, Thomas Suszynski, Umar Choudry, Samuel J Lin
Background: Dangling protocols are widely used in the postoperative management of lower extremity free flaps to promote microvascular adaptation. To optimize outcomes, surgeons use dangling protocols, gradually increasing limb dependency, to enhance venous adaptation. However, wide variability exists in their design, and the impact of dangling duration and frequency on complication rates remains unclear.
Methods: A systematic meta-analysis was performed to evaluate pooled complication rates associated with dangling protocols and to assess whether protocol duration (minutes per session) or frequency (number of sessions) was associated with adverse outcomes. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane for relevant studies published through 2024. Then, a random-effects model was used to estimate pooled rates of partial flap loss, total flap loss, venous congestion, arterial compromise, hematoma, infection, wound dehiscence, return to the operating room, and donor site complications. Meta-regression was performed to examine associations with dangling protocol characteristics.
Results: Across pooled studies, overall complication rates were low, including total flap loss (0.30%), arterial compromise (0.30%), and venous congestion (0.73%). No statistically significant associations were found between dangling duration and any complication type. While increased frequency of dangling was significantly associated with higher return-to-OR rates in the full model (slope = 0.0224; p = 0.0002), this relationship was entirely driven by a single study reporting 24 sessions/day. When this outlier was excluded, the association became non-significant.
Conclusion: Dangling protocols appear safe and well tolerated, with low rates of major complications. While the duration of dangling sessions does not affect complication risk, higher frequency may increase the likelihood of surgical re-intervention. These findings support the need for standardized, evidence-based protocols and further research into the physiologic and clinical thresholds guiding postoperative flap care. A meta-analysis of lower extremity free flap studies demonstrated low complication rates across common endpoints including total flap loss (0.30%), arterial compromise (0.30%), and venous congestion (0.73%).
Level of evidence: 3:
背景:悬垂方案被广泛应用于下肢游离皮瓣的术后处理,以促进微血管的适应。为了优化结果,外科医生使用悬垂方案,逐渐增加肢体依赖性,以增强静脉适应。然而,它们的设计存在很大的可变性,悬垂时间和频率对并发症发生率的影响尚不清楚。方法:进行了系统的荟萃分析,以评估与悬垂治疗方案相关的合并并发症发生率,并评估治疗方案持续时间(每次治疗分钟)或频率(每次治疗次数)是否与不良结果相关。根据PRISMA 2020指南,我们检索了Medline、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane,检索了截至2024年发表的相关研究。然后,使用随机效应模型来估计部分皮瓣丢失、全部皮瓣丢失、静脉充血、动脉损伤、血肿、感染、伤口裂开、返回手术室和供区并发症的总发生率。进行meta回归以检查与悬垂协议特征的关联。结果:在汇总研究中,总体并发症发生率较低,包括皮瓣总丢失(0.30%)、动脉损害(0.30%)和静脉充血(0.73%)。悬垂时间与并发症类型之间无统计学意义的关联。虽然在整个模型中,悬挂频率的增加与更高的or回报率显著相关(斜率= 0.0224;p = 0.0002),但这种关系完全是由一项报告24次/天的研究驱动的。当这个异常值被排除后,这种关联就变得不显著了。结论:悬垂治疗方案安全且耐受性良好,主要并发症发生率低。虽然悬挂手术的持续时间不会影响并发症的风险,但更高的频率可能会增加手术再干预的可能性。这些发现支持了标准化、循证方案的必要性,并进一步研究指导术后皮瓣护理的生理和临床阈值。下肢游离皮瓣研究的荟萃分析显示,常见终点的并发症发生率较低,包括皮瓣总丢失(0.30%)、动脉损伤(0.30%)和静脉充血(0.73%)。证据等级:3;
{"title":"The Art and Science of Dangling: A Systematic Review of Free Flap Protocols.","authors":"Jose A Foppiani, Dani C Leung, Aneesh Syal, Roan N Anderson, Pedram Zargari, Neej Patel, Nolan Schwarz, Thomas Suszynski, Umar Choudry, Samuel J Lin","doi":"10.1002/micr.70190","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.70190","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dangling protocols are widely used in the postoperative management of lower extremity free flaps to promote microvascular adaptation. To optimize outcomes, surgeons use dangling protocols, gradually increasing limb dependency, to enhance venous adaptation. However, wide variability exists in their design, and the impact of dangling duration and frequency on complication rates remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic meta-analysis was performed to evaluate pooled complication rates associated with dangling protocols and to assess whether protocol duration (minutes per session) or frequency (number of sessions) was associated with adverse outcomes. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane for relevant studies published through 2024. Then, a random-effects model was used to estimate pooled rates of partial flap loss, total flap loss, venous congestion, arterial compromise, hematoma, infection, wound dehiscence, return to the operating room, and donor site complications. Meta-regression was performed to examine associations with dangling protocol characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across pooled studies, overall complication rates were low, including total flap loss (0.30%), arterial compromise (0.30%), and venous congestion (0.73%). No statistically significant associations were found between dangling duration and any complication type. While increased frequency of dangling was significantly associated with higher return-to-OR rates in the full model (slope = 0.0224; p = 0.0002), this relationship was entirely driven by a single study reporting 24 sessions/day. When this outlier was excluded, the association became non-significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Dangling protocols appear safe and well tolerated, with low rates of major complications. While the duration of dangling sessions does not affect complication risk, higher frequency may increase the likelihood of surgical re-intervention. These findings support the need for standardized, evidence-based protocols and further research into the physiologic and clinical thresholds guiding postoperative flap care. A meta-analysis of lower extremity free flap studies demonstrated low complication rates across common endpoints including total flap loss (0.30%), arterial compromise (0.30%), and venous congestion (0.73%).</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: 3: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":18600,"journal":{"name":"Microsurgery","volume":"46 2","pages":"e70190"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146142888","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}