Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography as a new method for assessing autonomization of pedicled and microvascular free flaps in head and neck reconstructive surgery
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April 28, 2017
Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography as a new method for assessing autonomization of pedicled and microvascular free flaps in head and neck reconstructive surgery
OBJECTIVE: Evaluating vascular autonomization of pedicled and microvascular free flaps for soft tissue reconstruction in the head and neck area by means of postoperative quantitative measurement of dynamic contrast values obtained with contrast-enhanced ultrasound.
METHODS: 8/18 patients underwent lip reconstruction with a pedicle flap, 10 patients reconstruction of other parts of the head with a microvascular free transplant. Ultrasound examinations were conducted within the 1st postoperative week and 4 weeks after surgery. After the intravenous bolus of the ultrasound contrast agent, examinations were carried out for 30 sec without compression followed by 30 sec with compression of the vascular pedicle in bolus and flash kinetics. Digital cine loops were analyzed off-line with a quantification software (VueBox™) to determine the Rise Time (RT) between flap tissue with and without compression.
RESULTS: Measurements showed increasing autonomous perfusion, independent of the vascular pedicle. No transplant was lost, but 4/10 patients with a microvascular flap and 1/8 patients with a pedicle flap developed postoperative complications. RT values for the pedicled and microvascular flaps obtained under compression differed significantly between the 1st and the 4th week (p = 0.025).
CONCLUSIONS: Reliable neovascularization was achieved 4 weeks postoperatively. CEUS showed to be a useful method for assessing the degree of autonomization of pedicle and microvascular free flaps.
AbbeR., A new plastic operation for the relief of deformity due to double harelip, Plast Reconstr Surg42(5) (1968), 481–483.
2.
BaumannD. and RobbG., Lip reconstruction, Seminars in Plastic Surgery22(4) (2008), 269–280.
3.
BoozariB., LotzJ., GalanskiM. and GebelM., Diagnostic imaging of liver tumours. Current status, Der Internist48(1) (2007), 8, 10-2, 4-6, 8-20.
4.
ClaudonM., DietrichC.F., ChoiB.I., CosgroveD.O., KudoM., NolsoeC.P., et al., Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver–update 2012: A WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS, Ultraschall in der Medizin34(1) (2013), 11–29.
5.
DietrichC.F., AverkiouM.A., CorreasJ.M., LassauN., LeenE. and PiscagliaF., An EFSUMB introduction into Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (DCE-US) for quantification of tumour perfusion, Ultraschall in der Medizin33(4) (2012), 344–351.
6.
DisaJ.J., CordeiroP.G. and HidalgoD.A., Efficacy of conventional monitoring techniques in free tissue transfer: An 11-year experience in 750 consecutive cases, Plast Reconstr Surg104(1) (1999), 97–101.
7.
FisherJ. and WoodM., Late necrosis of a latissimus dorsi free flap, Plast Reconstr Surg74(2) (1984), 274–281.
8.
GauthierM., LeguerneyI., ThalmensiJ., ChebilM., ParisotS., PeronneauP., et al., Estimation of intra-operator variability in perfusion parameter measurements using DCE-US, World Journal of Radiology3(3) (2011), 70–81.
9.
GeisS., PrantlL., DoldererJ., LambyP., MuellerS. and JungE.M., Postoperative monitoring of local and free flaps with contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)–analysis of 112 patients, Ultraschall in der Medizin34(6) (2013), 550–558.
10.
GranzowJ., LiA., CatonA. and BoydJ., Free flap survival following failure of the vascular pedicle, Ann Plast Surg75(1) (2015), 44–48.
11.
JungE.M., PrantlL., SchreyerA.G., SchreyerC.I., RennertJ., WalterM., et al., New perfusion imaging of tissue transplants with Contrast Harmonic Ultrasound Imaging (CHI) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in comparison with laser-induced Indocyanine Green (ICG) fluorescence angiography, Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation43(1-2) (2009), 19–33.
12.
JungE.M. and StroszczynskiC., Modern Ultrasound Diagnostic Procedures in an Interdisciplinary Ultrasound Department: Challenge and Opportunities for Radiologists, RoFo: Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin188(1) (2016), 27–32.
13.
LassauN., ChebilM., ChamiL., BidaultS., GirardE. and RocheA., Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (DCE-US): A new tool for the early evaluation of antiangiogenic treatment, Targeted Oncology5(1) (2010), 53–58.
14.
LassauN. and RocheA., Imaging and angiogenesis: DCE-US (dynamic contrast enhanced-ultrasonography), Bulletin du Cancer94 (2007), Spec No:S247–53.
15.
LeeS. and ThieleC., Factors associated with free flap complications after head and neck, J Oral Maxillofac Surg68(9) (2010), 2169–2178.
16.
LinC.M., HuangC.C., HsuH., ChiuC.H. and ChienS.H., Advancements in free flap monitoring in the last decade: A critical review, Plast Reconstr Surg126(2) (2010), 679; author reply –80.
17.
MoolenburghS., van HuizumM.A. and HoferS., DIEP-flap failure after pedicle division three years following transfer, Br J Plast Surg58(7) (2005), 1000–1003.
18.
MuckeT., WolffK.D., RauA., KehlV., MitchellD.A. and SteinerT., Autonomization of free flaps in the oral cavity: A prospective clinical study, Microsurgery32(3) (2012), 201–206.
19.
PiscagliaF. and BolondiL., Italian Society for Ultrasound in M, Biology Study Group on Ultrasound Contrast A. The safety of Sonovue in abdominal applications: Retrospective analysis of 23188 investigations, Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology32(9) (2006), 1369–1375.
20.
PiscagliaF., NolsoeC., DietrichC.F., CosgroveD.O., GiljaO.H., et al., The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Practice of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS): Update 2011 on non-hepatic applications, Ultraschall in der Medizin33(1) (2012), 33–59.
PrantlL., GeisS., LambyP. and JungE.M., Recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in free tissue transplant monitoring, Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation61(2) (2015), 359–365.
23.
SabattiniP., Cenno Storico Dell’origine e Progressi Della Rhinoplastica e Chelioplastica. Bologna, Belle Arti, (1838).
24.
SalgadoC.J., SmithA., KimS., HigginsJ., BehnamA., HerreraH.R., et al., Effects of late loss of arterial inflow on free flap survival, J Reconstr Microsurg18(7) (2002), 579–584.
25.
Schultze-MosgauS., GrabenbauerG.G., WehrhanF., Radespiel-TrogerM., WiltfangJ., SauerR., et al., Histomorphologische Strukturveranderungen von Kopf-Hals-Gefassen nach pra- oder postoperativer Radiotherapie, Strahlentherapie und Onkologie: Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft178(6) (2002), 299–306In.
26.
TranquartF., MercierL., FrinkingP., GaudE. and ArditiM., Perfusion quantification in contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)–ready for research projects and routine clinical use, Ultraschall in der Medizin33(Suppl 1) (2012), S31–S38.
27.
WilsonS.R., GreenbaumL.D. and GoldbergB.B., Contrast-enhanced ultrasound: What is the evidence and what are the obstacles?AJR American Journal of Roentgenology193(1) (2009), 55–60.
28.
WolffK.D., MuckeT., LehmbrockJ., LoeffelbeinD.J., KestingM.R. and HolzleF., Rapid autonomisation of a combined fibular- and anterolateral thigh flap transferred by a wrist carrier to an irradiated and vessel depleted neck, J Surg Oncol99(2) (2009), 123–126.
