4.4 Article

The use of laser speckle contrast imaging to predict flap necrosis: An experimental study in a porcine flap model

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2018.11.021

关键词

Flap monitoring; Reconstructive surgery; Laser speckle contrast imaging; Partial flap necrosis

类别

资金

  1. County of Ostergotland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We evaluated the use of laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI) in the perioperative planning in reconstructive flap surgery. The aim of the study was to investigate whether LSCI can predict regions with a high risk of developing postoperative necrosis. Our hypothesis was that, perioperatively, such regions have perfusion values below a threshold value and show a negative perfusion trend. Methods: A porcine flap model based on the cranial gluteal artery perforator was used. Images were acquired before surgery, immediately after surgery (t = 0), after 30 min (t =30 min), and after 72h (t = 72 h). Regions of interest (ROIs) were chosen along the central axis of the flap. Clinical evaluation of the flap was made during each time point. Results: At t = 72 h, a demarcation line could be seen at a distance of 15.8 +/- 0.4 cm away from the proximal border of the flaps. At t =0, perfusion decreased gradually from the proximal to the distal ROI. At t =30 min, perfusion was significantly lower in the ROI distal to the final demarcation line than that at t = 0, and in all flaps, these ROIs had a perfusion <25 PU. At t= 72 h, perfusion in the ROI proximal to this line returned to baseline levels, whereas perfusion in the distal ROI remained low. Conclusions: In our model, a decrease in perfusion during the first 30 min after surgery and a perfusion <25 PU at t = 30 min was a predictor for tissue morbidity 72 h after surgery, which indicates that LSCI is a promising technique for perioperative monitoring in reconstructive flap surgery. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据