Use of a biopsy punch for end-to-side anastomosis in free-tissue transfer

Comparison of a coupling system and the suture method in end-to-side microvascular anastomosis in head and neck reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Use of coupling devices in microvascular anastomosis continues to increase, but it is not yet actively used in end-to-side (ETS) anastomosis because there is no standard method. Therefore, we propose an easy and time-saving ETS micro-anastomosis method using coupling devices in head and neck reconstruction and compare it with the conventional suture method.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 30 consecutive cases (43 anastomoses) of ETS anastomosis in head and neck reconstruction from 2018 to 2022. Patient characteristics, operative details, and anastomosis time were evaluated. When using the coupling device, a cross incision was created in the recipient vessel to form vascular flaps. By pulling the flaps out of the ring, the intact vessel lining was fixed. Other procedures were the same as for a traditional anastomosis.

RESULTS

The mean anastomosis time was 12.81 min (range, 6.7-24.87) for the suture and 4.96 min (range, 2.02-9.4) for the coupling device, a statistically significant difference (p-value <.00005). There was no venous insufficiency or flap failure with either method.

CONCLUSIONS

ETS venous anastomosis using the coupling device is an easy-to-use, safe, and timesaving procedure for head and neck reconstruction.

Effects of Low-Load Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy Compared with Traditional Resistance Training in Healthy Adults Older Than 60 Years: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

There is clinical interest in determining the effects of low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy compared with traditional high- and low-load (HL and LL) resistance training in healthy older adults and the influence of LL-BFR training cuff-pressure on these outcomes.

METHODS

A search was performed on the MEDLINE, PEDro, CINHAL, Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases.

RESULTS

The analysis included 14 studies. HL resistance training produces a small increase in muscle strength (eight studies; SMD, -0.23 [-0.41; -0.05]) but not in muscle hypertrophy (six studies; (SMD, 0.08 [-0.22; 0.38]) when compared with LL-BFR resistance training. Compared with traditional LL resistance training, LL-BFR resistance training produces small-moderate increases in muscle strength (seven studies; SMD, 0.44 [0.28; 0.60]) and hypertrophy (two studies; SMD, 0.51 [0.06; 0.96]). There were greater improvements in muscle strength when higher cuff pressures were applied versus traditional LL resistance training but not versus HL resistance training.

CONCLUSIONS

LL-BFR resistance training results in lower muscle strength gains than HL resistance training and greater than traditional LL resistance training in healthy adults older than 60 years. LL-BFR resistance training promotes a similar muscle hypertrophy to HL resistance training but is greater than that of traditional LL resistance training. Applying cuff pressures above the limb occlusion pressure could enhance the increases in muscle strength compared with traditional LL resistance training.