4.2 Review

Vasopressors and Reconstructive Flap Perfusion A Review of the Literature Comparing the Effects of Various Pharmacologic Agents

期刊

ANNALS OF PLASTIC SURGERY
卷 73, 期 2, 页码 245-248

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e31828d70b3

关键词

vasopressor; microvascular; free tissue transfer; anesthesia

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Use of intraoperative vasopressors is of debate in microvascular surgery. Anesthesia is an important factor in maintaining the rate of success of flap transfer by affecting regional blood flow and global hemodynamics. We conducted a review of the literature comparing the use of different vasoactive agents on different flaps in various human and animal models. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed. Bibliographies of key articles were also reviewed for additional resources. Analysis was done to determine the overall trend of how flap perfusion is affected by the use of intraoperative vasoactive medication. Results: The literature search identified 16 relevant articles. Flaps were studied in pigs in 7 studies, rats in 5, and humans in 4. The most common flap was the rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap. Phenylephrine and norepinephrine were the most common pressor agents used. No significant statistical changes were noted in 8 of the 16 studies; initial ischemia followed by delayed improved perfusion was observed in 4 studies, true ischemia'' and hypoperfusion of the skin flaps was noted in 3. There was no consistency in their effect on flap perfusion: initial ischemia followed by delayed improved perfusion was observed in 4 studies, whereas true ischemia and hypoperfusion of the skin flaps was noted in 3. Conclusions: To date, there is no reliable prospective clinical evidence that supports the absolute contraindication of pressor agents during free flap surgery. This topic will continue to be a matter for debate until more definitive data can be obtained.

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

4.2
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