Perioperative care of head and neck free flap patients

Free-flap reconstruction methods in head-and-neck oncologic surgery: A CROSS practice survey of members of the French GETTEC Head-and-Neck Tumor Study Group

OBJECTIVE

To survey practices concerning the use of anticoagulants and antiplatelets in microvascular free-flap reconstruction following oncological surgery of the head and neck.

METHODS

A survey of practices was carried out between September 2022 and March 2023. An online questionnaire was sent to members of the French GETTEC Head-and-Neck Tumor Study Group in all French centers practicing head-and-neck cancer surgery with reconstruction using microvascular free-flaps. The questionnaire asked surgeons about their practices regarding the use of intra- and postoperative anticoagulants and antiplatelets, preoperative management of comorbidities, and prevention of postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Sixty-one percent of the 38 respondents (23/38) used intraoperative intravenous heparin injection, associated to flap irrigation with heparin for 76% of surgeons (29/38) and/or a heparin solution bath for 37% (14/38). Postoperative anticoagulation was used by 95% of surgeons (36/38), and antiplatelets by 40% (15/38). Postoperatively, 40% (15/38) carried out monitoring using an implantable micro-Doppler probe, associated to analysis of clinical characteristics of the flap.

CONCLUSION

Reconstructive surgery using microvascular free-flaps involves numerous factors that can influence success. Prospective studies, particularly concerning the management of anticoagulants, could enable a national consensus on methods for free-flap reconstruction.

Outcomes Associated with Multiple Free Tissue Transfers Performed in a Single Day

Background: Although microvascular free tissue transfer (MFTT) remains technically challenging, surgeons may need to perform >1 MFTT operations in a given day. Objective: To compare MFTT outcomes in cases where surgeons completed one versus two flaps per day by measuring flap viability and complication rates. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of MFTT cases from January 2011 to February 2022 with >30-day follow-up. Outcomes, including flap survival and operating room takeback, were compared using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: Of 1096 patients meeting inclusion criteria (1105 flaps), there was a male predominance (n = 721, 66%). Mean age was 63.0 ± 14.4 years. Complications requiring takeback were identified in 108 flaps (9.8%) and were greatest for double flaps in the same patient (SP) (27.8%, p = 0.06). Flap failure occurred in 23 (2.1%) cases and was also greatest for double flaps in the SP (16.7%, p = 0.001). Takeback (p = 0.06) and failure (p = 0.70) rates were not different between days with one versus two unique patient flaps. Conclusions: Among patients undergoing MFTT, those treated on days in which surgeons perform two unique cases compared with single cases will demonstrate no difference in outcomes, as measured by flap survival and takeback, whereas patients with defects requiring multiple flaps will experience greater takeback and failure rates.

Practice Trends and Evidence-Based Practice in Microvascular Reconstruction

Microvascular and free flap reconstruction are important to the otolaryngology-head and neck surgery practice. Herein, the reader will find an up-to-date discussion of various evidence-based practice trends related to microvascular surgery, including surgical techniques, anesthetic and airway considerations, free flap monitoring and troubleshooting, surgical efficiency, and both patient-related and surgeon-related risk factors that may affect outcomes.

Postoperative depth of sedation and associated outcomes in free flap transfers to the head and neck

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the impact of postoperative depth of sedation in free flap transfers to the head and neck.

METHODS

A single center, retrospective cohort of 92 patients were stratified by depth of sedation, light sedation (RASS -1 or greater) or deep sedation (RASS less than -1), and analyzed for postoperative flap and medical complications.

RESULTS

Of the 92 patients 45 were included in the light sedation and 47 in the deep sedation group. Flap complication requiring return to the operating room occurred in 8 (22.2%) patients in light sedation compared to 12 (27.7%) (p = 0.450) patients in deep sedation. A composite outcome of flap and medical complications occurred less frequently in the light sedation group 14 (31.8%) compared to deep sedation 32 (69.6%) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in return to the operating room between the two groups. Light sedation had reduced incidence of medical complications compared to deep.

Impact of Hospital Volume on Outcomes Following Head and Neck Cancer Surgery and Flap Reconstruction

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

Utilization of flaps for reconstruction of large head and neck cancer (HNCA) defects has become more prevalent. The present study aimed to assess the impact of center experience as measured by annual hospital caseload on mortality, major complications, resource utilization, and 90-day readmissions following HNCA resection with flap reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Non-Randomized Controlled Cohort Study.

METHODS

All adult patients undergoing elective HNCA resection with flap reconstruction were identified utilizing the 2010 to 2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Hospitals were subsequently classified as low-, medium-, or high-volume based on annual institutional surgical caseload tertiles. Multivariable regression models were implemented to assess the independent association of hospital volume with the outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Over the nine-year study period, the proportion of HNCA resection with flap reconstruction gradually increased (12.8% in 2010 vs. 17.3% in 2018, P < .001). Although increasing hospital volume did not alter the odds of mortality, patients treated at high-volume centers were less likely to experience both surgical (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.97, P = .025) and medical complications (AOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57-0.85, P < .001). Furthermore, these patients had shorter hospitalizations (-2.1 days, 95% CI -2.7 to -1.4 days, P < .001) and decreased costs (-$8,100, 95% CI -11,400 to -4,700, P < .001) compared to counterparts at low-volume centers. However, hospital volume did not impact 90-day readmissions.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing HNCA resection with flap reconstruction at high-volume centers were less likely to experience surgical and medical complications while incurring shorter hospitalizations and lower costs. Implementation of volume standards may be appropriate to improve outcomes in this surgical population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 2021.

Cost and clinical outcomes of postoperative intensive care unit versus general floor management in head and neck free flap reconstructive surgery patients

PURPOSE

To compare clinical, surgical, and cost outcomes in patients undergoing head and neck free-flap reconstructive surgery in the setting of postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) against general floor management.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of head and neck free-flap reconstructive surgery patients at a single tertiary academic medical center. Clinical data was obtained from medical records. Cost data was obtained via the Mayo Clinic Rochester Cost Data Warehouse, which assigns Medicare reimbursement rates to all professional billed services.

RESULTS

A total of 502 patients were included, with 82 managed postoperatively in the ICU and 420 on the general floor. Major postoperative outcomes did not differ significantly between groups (Odds Ratio[OR] 1.54; p = 0.41). After covariate adjustments, patients managed in the ICU had a 3.29 day increased average length of hospital stay (Standard Error 0.71; p < 0.0001) and increased need for take-back surgery (OR 2.35; p = 0.02) when compared to the general floor. No significant differences were noted between groups in terms of early free-flap complications (OR 1.38;p = 0.35) or late free-flap complications (Hazard Ratio 0.81; p = 0.61). Short-term cost was $8772 higher in the ICU (range = $5640-$11,903; p < 0.01). Long-term cost did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative management of head and neck oncologic free-flap patients in the ICU does not significantly improve major postoperative outcomes or free-flap complications when compared to general floor care, but does increase short-term costs. General floor management may be appropriate when cardiopulmonary compromise is not present.

Risk factors for surgical site infection in free-flap reconstructive surgery for head and neck cancer: Retrospective Australian cohort study

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSI) are common complications of free-flap reconstruction for head and neck cancer defects. This study aimed to identify risk factors for SSI following a significant change in local antibiotic prophylaxis practice.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted of 325 patients receiving free-flap reconstruction for head and neck cancer defects at a tertiary hospital in Melbourne, Australia between 2013 and 2019. Charts were queried for recipient SSI (primary outcome), donor SSI, other infections, antibiotic use, hospital length of stay, and mortality.

RESULTS

Risk factors for SSI included female sex, T-classification, hardware insertion, clindamycin prophylaxis, and operative duration. There was a trend toward increased SSI with shorter ≤24 h prophylaxis (OR: 0.43).

CONCLUSION

Antibiotic duration and type were associated with SSI. Complexity of surgery, T-classification, hardware use, and operative duration were also independently associated with SSI. A prospective trial is indicated to elicit optimal prophylactic antibiotic duration.

Expert Consensus Statement on the Perioperative Management of Adult Patients Undergoing Head and Neck Surgery and Free Tissue Reconstruction From the Society for Head and Neck Anesthesia

The perioperative care of adult patients undergoing free tissue transfer during head and neck surgical (microvascular) reconstruction is inconsistent across practitioners and institutions. The executive board of the Society for Head and Neck Anesthesia (SHANA) nominated specialized anesthesiologists and head and neck surgeons to an expert group, to develop expert consensus statements. The group conducted an extensive review of the literature to identify evidence and gaps and to prioritize quality improvement opportunities. This report of expert consensus statements aims to improve and standardize perioperative care in this setting. The Modified Delphi method was used to evaluate the degree of agreement with draft consensus statements. Additional discussion and collaboration was performed via video conference and electronic communication to refine expert opinions and to achieve consensus on key statements. Thirty-one statements were initially formulated, 14 statements met criteria for consensus, 9 were near consensus, and 8 did not reach criteria for consensus. The expert statements reaching consensus described considerations for preoperative assessment and optimization, airway management, perioperative monitoring, fluid management, blood management, tracheal extubation, and postoperative care. This group also examined the role for vasopressors, communication, and other quality improvement efforts. This report provides the priorities and perspectives of a group of clinical experts to help guide perioperative care and provides actionable guidance for and opportunities for improvement in the care of patients undergoing free tissue transfer for head and neck reconstruction. The lack of consensus for some areas likely reflects differing clinical experiences and a limited available evidence base.

The power of a checklist: Decrease in emergency department epistaxis transfers after clinical care pathway implementation

BACKGROUND

Annually, epistaxis costs US hospitals over $100 million dollars. Many patients visit emergency departments (ED) with variable treatment, thus providing opportunity for improvement.

OBJECTIVE

To implement an epistaxis clinical care pathway (CCP) in the ED, and analyze its effects on treatment and ED transfers.

METHODS

An interdisciplinary team developed the CCP to be implemented at a tertiary hospital system with 11 satellite EDs. The analysis included matched eight-month periods prior to pathway implementation and after pathway implementation. Subjects included patients with ICD-10 code diagnosis of epistaxis. Patients under 18 years old, recent surgery or trauma, or bleeding disorders were excluded. There were 309 patients from the pre-implementation cohort, 53 of which were transferred and 37 met inclusion criteria; 322 from the post-implementation cohort, 37 of which were transferred, and 15 met inclusion criteria. Outcome measures included epistaxis intervention by ED providers and otolaryngologists before and after pathway implementation.

RESULTS

CCP implementation resulted in a 61% reduction in patient transfers (p < 0.001). ED providers showed a 51% increase in documentation of anterior rhinoscopy with proper equipment, 34% increased use of topical vasoconstrictors, 40% increased use of absorbable packing, 7% decrease in use of unilateral non-absorbable packing, and 17% decrease in use of bilateral non-absorbable packing.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior to CCP implementation, ED treatment of epistaxis varied significantly. CCP resulted in standardized treatment and significant reduction in transfers. A CCP checklist is an effective way to standardize care and prevent unnecessary hospital transfers.

Locoregional Flap Reconstruction Following Oromaxillofacial Oncologic Surgery in Dogs and Cats: A Review and Decisional Algorithm

Primary treatment of most oromaxillofacial tumors in dogs and cats is resective surgery. Management of malignant tumors may be very challenging as wide/radical free-margin surgical removal must be achieved while preserving vital functions. Removal of orofacial tumors may result in large defects exposing the oral cavity or creating a communication with the nasal, pharyngeal, or orbital cavities. Such defects require orofacial reconstruction in order to restore respiratory and manducatory functions. The veterinary surgeon must be familiar with reconstructive techniques in order to prevent the inability of closing the defect, which could lead to an insufficient resection. Small oral defects exposing the nasal cavity are best closed with local random mucosal flaps. Closure of large oral defects may be better achieved with a facial or major palatine-based axial-pattern flap. Small to moderate facial defects can be closed with local advancement or transposition skin flaps. Reconstruction of large facial defects often requires the use of locoregional axial pattern flaps such as the caudal auricular, the superficial temporal, or the facial (angularis oris) myocutaneous axial pattern flaps. Recent publications have shown that the facial (angularis oris) flap is a very versatile and reliable flap in orofacial reconstructive surgery. A surgical decision algorithm based on the size, nature, and location of the defect is proposed.

Risk Factors for and Cost Implications of Free Flap Take-backs: A Single Institution Review

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

For patients undergoing microvascular free tissue transfer (MFTT), we evaluated risk factors and financial implications of operating room (OR) take-back procedures.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review at a tertiary care center.

METHODS

Patients who underwent MFTT for head and neck reconstruction from 2011 to 2018 were identified. We compared hospital length of stay and overall costs associated with OR take-back procedures. Multivariable regression analysis evaluated factors associated with OR take-backs during the same hospitalization.

RESULTS

A total of 727 free flaps were reviewed, and 70 OR take-backs (9.6%) were identified. Mean total length of stay (LOS) in the ICU was 3.4 days versus 6.7 days for non-take-back and take-back flaps, respectively (P < .001). Mean total LOS on the regular floor was 6.3 days versus 13.1 days, respectively (P < .001). This resulted in a cost differential of $33,507 (94.3% increase relative to non-take-back flaps). The total cost associated with an OR take-back was $39,786. Hematomas were the most common cause of take-backs and wound dehiscence was associated with the highest costs. On multivariable analysis, higher ASA class (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.11-3.99; P = .026) and shorter ischemia times (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29-0.95; P = .030) were independently associated with increased risk of take-backs.

CONCLUSIONS

OR take-backs infrequently occur but are associated with a significant increase in financial burden when compared to free flap cases not requiring OR take-back. The large majority of the cost differential lies in a substantial increase of ICU and floor LOS for take-back flaps when compared to non-take-back flaps.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 131:E1821-E1829, 2021.

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.

Flap demise reversed after central venous access device removal: A case report

Patients undergoing head and neck free flap reconstruction should be evaluated for radiation-induced venous stenosis and presence of central venous port as a potential risk for flap failure.

New techniques and recommendations in the management of free flap surgery for head and neck defects in cancer patients

Free flap surgery is the gold standard surgical treatment for head and neck defects in cancer patients. Outcomes have improved considerably, probably due to recent advances in surgical techniques. In this article, we review improvements in the parameters traditionally used to optimize hematocrit levels and body temperature and to prevent vasoconstriction, and describe the use of cardiac output-guided fluid management, a technique that has proved useful in other procedures. Finally, we review other parameters used in free flap surgery, such as clotting/platelet management and nutritional optimization.

Perioperative Fluid Resuscitation in Free Flap Breast Reconstruction: When Is Enough Enough?

Perioperative liberal fluid resuscitation (LFR) can result in interstitial edema and venous congestion and may be associated with compromised perfusion of free flaps and higher incidence of wound complications. We hypothesized that restrictive intraoperative fluid resuscitation improves flap perfusion and lowers the wound complication rate in free flap breast reconstruction.

Ketamine Infusion in Post-Surgical Pain Management after Head and Neck Surgery: A Retrospective Observational Study

Background:

Head and neck cancer affects approximately 382,000 new patients per year worldwide with a significant portion undergoing surgical treatment. During postoperative period key elements in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) are airway management and pain control.

Objective:

We evaluated the average change of inpatient pain control using a Numerical Rating Score (NRS). We also evaluated the time of extubation after ICU admission recording the incidence of desaturation and the necessity of re-intubation. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of postoperative complications, included those narcotics-related, and the use of rescue analgesics.

Methods:

In this retrospective observational study, we analyzed data of registry before and after we have changed our postoperative analgesic protocol from remifentanil infusion to ketamine infusion.

Results:

Medical records of 20 patients were examined. 10 patients received 0.5 mg/kg ketamine bolus at the end of surgery, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.25 mg/kg/h. All patients presented a significant decrease in pain intensity from the 4th to 48th postoperative hour (p < 0.05), but statically not a significant difference in NRS score was recorded between the two groups. Time to extubation was shorter in ketamine group compared to the remifentanil group (112.30 min ± 16.78 vs. 78 min ± 14.17; p < 0.05). Desaturation rate was 10% in the remifentanil group, while no case was recorded in the ketamine group.

Conclusion:

The level of analgesia provided by ketamine and remifentanil was comparable. Ketamine was superior in ventilatory management of the patient with more rapid extubation and with no case of desaturation.

Perioperative in Intensive Medicine of reconstructive surgery and burned patients

Burned patients may need prolonged admissions in the Intensive Care Service, both for initial care and for the pre and postoperative treatment of the multiple surgeries they require. The initial resuscitation of critically burned patients requires adequate monitoring to calculate the fluid therapy necessary to replenish the losses and ensure tissue perfusion, but without excesses that increase interstitial edema. In addition, monitoring can evaluate the systemic inflammatory response that can lead to shock and organic dysfunctions. After this initial phase we will find a critical patient who requires multiple reinterventions in non-optimal situations, so he will need special care over a long period of time. In addition, the Intensive Care Service offers specific postoperative care for reconstructive surgery and the transplantation of composite tissues (upper limb and face) in which its success depends on a rigorous control through adequate monitoring and treatment.

Perioperative Care of Free Flap Patients

Microvascular free tissue transfer is an indispensable reconstructive option in head and neck reconstruction. Flap failure is relatively rare, but it is nonetheless very morbid and psychologically devastating to patients when it does occur. Further, complications after free tissue transfer to the head and neck remain common. There are numerous ongoing debates about various facets of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care of patients undergoing free flap reconstruction of the head and neck, all ultimately searching for the optimal treatment algorithm to further improve flap success, minimize complications, and maximize patient outcomes. Herein, the authors review current literature surrounding optimal preoperative nutritional support, intraoperative vasopressor use, perioperative fluid management, use of antithrombotic agents, antibiotic use, and other facets of the care of head and neck free flap patients to provide a guide to surgeons.

Current practices in microvascular reconstruction in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Despite major advances in the field of head and neck microvascular free tissue transfer (MFTT) over the past several decades, there are no standardized perioperative regimens for the care of patients undergoing free flap reconstructive surgery, and continued variation in practice exists. This study aimed to report current trends in the field of MFTT performed by otolaryngologists, including surgeon training, institutional operative practices, and perioperative management.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

METHODS

A survey of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited residency programs and American Head and Neck Society fellowship sites was conducted.

RESULTS

Seventy-one (62.8%) programs responded, with 67 (94.4%) routinely performing MFTT and 23 (32.4%) having a dedicated microvascular fellowship program. Of institutions performing MFTT, 66 (98.5%) reported the use of a two-surgeon team, most commonly both otolaryngologists (76.3%). Institutional MFTT volumes and donor site frequency are reported. Postoperative care includes routine admission to the intensive care unit (75.2%), step-down unit (15.0%), or general care floor (8.1%). Postoperative flap monitoring practices, including modalities, personnel, and timing/frequency show institutional variation. Despite differences in postoperative monitoring regimen and management (sedation, anticoagulation, antibiotic use), surgeon-reported measures of flap success rate (95.7%, standard deviation [SD] 4.7%) and complication rate (6.8%, SD 2.4%) show little difference across institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

Many elements of MFTT perioperative care show continued variation at an institutional level. There is a notable shift toward the two-team approach within otolaryngology. Self-reported flap complication and success rates showed no significant differences based on perioperative care and monitoring regimen. Further study of perioperative practices should focus on standardization of care to improve overall outcomes in this complex patient population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 129:138-145, 2019.