A Comprehensive Clinical Care Pathway for Microvascular Maxillofacial Reconstructive Surgery

Donor Limb Functional Restoration via a Novel Clinical Care Pathway following Fibula Free Flap Harvest for Head and Neck Reconstruction

Patients undergoing head and neck skeletal reconstruction (HNR) often require free tissue transfer from the extremities to ensure proper restoration of form and function. This requires a team-based, highly reliable medical system centered around the patient needs. Surgical intervention across multiple sites and harvesting of donor tissue results in short- and long-term physical impairments. There is a paucity of research objectively measuring impairments resulting from the graft donor site. There is a lack of research that objectively measures impairments and protocols for the management of these patients postoperatively. Patients undergo little, if any, formal approach to dealing with the vast impairments, which are sequelae to this surgery. This leads to large discrepancies in proposed functional progressions, return to duty timelines, and utilization of rehabilitative resources. At a major military medical center, an innovative clinical care pathway for patients undergoing HNR using free tissue transfer was implemented using a multidisciplinary model that focuses on early engagement with rehabilitation. This model, paired with a single surgery, will attempt to return service members to duty months earlier than the traditional approach. This report describes the conceptual framework and implementation of a new criteria-based, multidisciplinary clinical care pathway for HNR patients. The collaboration amongst the multidisciplinary care team has optimized the holistic health of the patient and communication with their support network, yielding faster return to normalization of daily life activities. The long-term goal is to further develop and formalize this pathway to best serve this patient population.

Immediate postoperative care on high dependency unit or ward following microvascular free tissue transfer: lessons learnt from a change in practice imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in sudden changes to the established practice of using the high dependency unit (HDU) for the first night of postoperative care following microvascular free tissue transfer. Patients were managed instead on the head and neck ward. This retrospective case-note review aimed to report outcomes in consecutive patients treated before and during the pandemic, and to reflect on the implications of ward-based rather than HDU care. A total of 235 patients had free tissue transfer between 3 January 2019 and 25 February 2021: 125 before (lockdown 23 March 2020), and 110 during the pandemic (52 ward-managed and 58 HDU-managed). There were subtle case-mix differences during the pandemic, with 92% of ward-treated patients having oral cancers compared with 64% of HDU patients, and 73% of ward patients having a tracheostomy compared with 40% of HDU patients. Ward patients were less likely to receive electrolyte replacement (45% HDU vs 0% ward) and inotropes (12% HDU vs 2% ward). There were fewer returns to theatre for evacuation of a haematoma or re-anastomosis during the pandemic than there were before it. Other than fewer haematoma complications during the pandemic, the nature of complications was similar. In conclusion, the dramatic changes imposed by the pandemic have shown that the ward is a safe place for patients to be cared for immediately postoperatively, and it alleviates the bed pressures experienced in HDU. Careful case selection and clear criteria are required to identify patients who need the HDU.

Enhanced recovery after surgery for head and neck free flap reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Head and neck free flap reconstruction requires multidisciplinary and coordinated care in the perioperative setting to ensure safe recovery and success. Several institutions have introduced enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols to attenuate the surgical stress response and improve postoperative recovery. With multiple studies demonstrating mixed results, the success of these interventions on clinical outcomes has yet to be determined.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of ERAS protocols and clinical care pathways for head and neck free flap reconstruction.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and grey literature up to September 1st, 2020 to identify studies comparing patients enrolled in an ERAS protocol and control group. Our primary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS) and readmission. Mortality, reoperations, wound complication and ICU (intensive care unit) LOS comprised our secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

18 studies met inclusion criteria, representing a total of 2630 patients. The specific components of ERAS protocols used by institutions varied. Nevertheless, patients enrolled in ERAS protocols had reduced hospital LOS (MD -4.36 days [-7.54, -1.18]), readmission rates (OR 0.64 [0.45;0.92]), and wound complications (RR 0.41 [0.21, 0.83]), without an increase in reoperations (RR 0.65 [0.41, 1.02]), mortality (RR 0.38 [0.05, 2.88]), or ICU LOS (MD -2.55 days [-5.84, 0.74]).

CONCLUSION

There is growing body of evidence supporting the role of ERAS protocols for the perioperative management of head and neck free flap patients. Our findings reveal that structured clinical algorithms for perioperative interventions improve clinically-meaningful outcomes in patients undergoing complex ablation and microvascular reconstruction procedures.

The Early Effects of Coronavirus Disease-2019 on Head and Neck Oncology and Microvascular Reconstruction Practice: A National Survey of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons Enrolled in the Head and Neck Special Interest Group

PURPOSE

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected healthcare systems across the nation. The purpose of this study is to gauge the early effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on head and neck oncology and reconstructive surgery (HNORS) practice and evaluate their practice patterns especially ones that might be impacted by COVID-19 and compare them to the current literature.

METHODS

This study is a cross-sectional study that surveyed fellowship-trained oral and maxillofacial surgeons in HNORS. This cohort of surgeons was contacted via a generated email list of surgeons enrolled in the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons pathology special interest group. An electronic survey contained 16 questions to assess the COVID-19 effect on HNORS practice and capture their practice patterns from mid-March to mid-April 2020. Statistical analysis was performed to analyze counts, percentages, and response rates.

RESULTS

We had a 60% response rate (39 of 64); 72% of our responders worked at academic institutions, 18% marked themselves as hybrid academic/private practice, and only 10% were considered hospital-based surgeons. Only 8% of the survey respondents were requested to pause head and neck cancer surgery, whereas 24% were requested to pause free flap surgery during the pandemic. Fifty-five percent agreed that the head and neck and reconstructive surgery should be conducted during a pandemic. Finally, 45% thought that two weeks was a reasonable delay for head and neck cancer cases, whereas 29% thought they should not be delayed for any amount of time. Regarding practice patterns, microvascular reconstruction was the favored method (100%). Respondents generally admitted patients to an intensive care unit postoperatively (92%) and were kept on a ventilator (53%).

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic had a small impact on the surgical treatment of patients with head and neck oncology. Most HNORS surgeons are practicing in accordance with recently published literature.