Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of coupler size on revision rate and timing of revision after free flap tissue transfer in the head and neck

  • Head and Neck
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Microvascular coupler devices have been proven an effective alternative to standard hand-sutured anastomoses in reconstructive surgery. Until now, the influence of the coupler size on the revision rate after free flap tissue transfer in head and neck surgery has not been investigated. Neither has its influence on the timing of venous revisions.

Materials and methods

A retrospective mono-center cohort study was performed in order to analyze the influence of coupler size on timing and revision rate of microvascular procedures.

Results

437 patients who had undergone surgery between 2009 and 2015 were included. The statistical analysis of coupler size and revision rate due to venous complications showed a significant reduction of more than 40% in the revision rate for each additional mm in the coupler size. We observed revisions due to venous congestion until the fourth day postoperatively within our cohort. However, when the coupler size used was ≥ 3 mm, no venous congestion occurred later than 12 h after surgery.

Conclusion

The quantitative effects of coupler size on the revision rate in head and neck reconstruction were demonstrated for the first time. We recommend spending extra time and effort on dissecting the largest possible vein in order to be able to choose the largest possible coupler size for the venous anastomosis. As a consequence of our findings, we limit our postoperative monitoring for patients with a coupler ≥ 3 mm to 24 h, as later venous congestions are very unlikely.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kruse AL, Luebbers HT, Grätz KW, Obwegeser JA (2010) Factors influencing survival of free-flap in reconstruction for cancer of the head and neck: a literature review. Microsurgery 30:242–248

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Yazar S (2007) Selection of recipient vessels in microsurgical free tissue reconstruction of head and neck defects. Microsurgery 27:588–594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Grewal AS, Erovic B, Strumas N, Enepekides DJ, Higgins KM (2012) The utility of the microvascular anastomotic coupler in free tissue transfer. Can J Plast Surg 20:98–102

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhang T, Lubek J, Salama A, Caccamese J, Coletti D, Dyalram D, Ord R (2012) Venous anastomoses using microvascular coupler in free flap head and neck reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 70:992–996

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Reiter M, Harréus U, Kisser U, Betz CS, Baumeister P (2017) Buried free flaps in head and neck reconstruction: higher risk of free flap failure. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274:427–430

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Reiter M, Kapsreiter M, Betz CS, Harréus U (2012) Perioperative management of antithrombotic medication in head and neck reconstruction—a retrospective analysis of 137 patients. Am J Otolaryngol 33:693–696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Haughey BH, Wilson E, Kluwe L, Piccirillo J, Fredrickson J, Sessions D, Spector G (2001) Free flap reconstruction of the head and neck: analysis of 241 cases. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125:10–17

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wei FC, Yazar S, Lin CH, Cheng MH, Tsao CK, Chiang YC (2005) Double free flaps in head and neck reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 32:303–308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nakayama K, Yamamoto K, Tamiya T (1962) A new simple apparatus for anastomosis of small vessels. Preliminary report. J Int Coll Surg 38:12–26

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Delacure MD, Wong RS, Markowitz BL, Kobayashi MR, Ahn CY, Shedd DP, Spies AL, Loree TR, Shaw WW (1995) Clinical experience with a microvascular anastomotic device in head and neck reconstruction. Am J Surg 170:521–523

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Liu SQ, Lei P, Cao ZP, Lv Y, Li JH, Cui XH (2012) Nonsuture anastomosis of arteries and veins using the magnetic pinned-ring device: a histologic and scanning electron microscopic study. Ann Vasc Surg 26:985–995

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ahn CY, Shaw WW, Berns S, Markowitz BL (1994) Clinical experience with the 3M microvascular coupling anastomotic device in 100 free-tissue transfers. Plast Reconstr Surg 93:1481–1484

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yap LH, Constantinides J, Butler CE (2006) Venous thrombosis in coupled versus sutured microvascular anastomoses. Ann Plast Surg 57:666–669

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Berggren A, Ostrup LT, Lidman D (1987) Mechanical anastomosis of small arteries and veins with the unilink apparatus: a histologic and scanning electron microscopic study. Plast Reconstr Surg 80:274–283

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Li R, Zhang R, He W, Qiao Y, Li W (2015) The use of venous coupler device in free tissue transfers for oral and maxillofacial reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 73:2225–2231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nishimoto S, Hikasa H, Ichino N, Kurita T, Yoshino K (2000) Venous anastomoses with a microvascular anastomotic device in head and neck reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 16:553–556

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Broer PN, Weichman KE, Tanna N, Wilson S, Ng R, Ahn C, Choi M, Karp NS, Levine JP, Allen RJ (2013) Venous coupler size in autologous breast reconstruction—does it matter. Microsurgery 33:514–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nocke H, Meyer F, Lessmann V (2014) Aspects of vascular physiology in clinical and vascular surgical practice: basic principles of vascular mechanics. Zent Chir 139:499–507

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Benatar MJ, Dassonville O, Chamorey E, Poissonnet G, Ettaiche M, Pierre CS, Benezery K, Hechema R, Demard F, Santini J, Bozec A (2013) Impact of preoperative radiotherapy on head and neck free flap reconstruction: a report on 429 cases. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66:478–482

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Baek CH, Park W, Choi N, Gu S, Sohn I, Chung MK (2016) Free flap outcome of salvage surgery compared to primary surgery for head and neck defects: a propensity score analysis. Oral Oncol 62:85–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Halle M, Eriksson BO, Docherty Skogh AC, Sommar P, Hammarstedt L, Gahm C (2017) Improved head and neck free flap outcome-effects of a treatment protocol adjustment from pre- to postoperative radiotherapy. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 5:e1253

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Reiter M, Baumeister P, Jacobi C (2017) Head and neck reconstruction in the elderly patient: a safe procedure. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274:3169–3174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brady JS, Desai SV, Crippen MM, Eloy JA, Gubenko Y, Baredes S, Park RCW (2017) Association of anesthesia duration with complications after microvascular reconstruction of the head and neck. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2017.1607

  24. Kim BD, Ver Halen JP, Grant DW, Kim JY (2014) Anesthesia duration as an independent risk factor for postoperative complications in free flap surgery: a review of 1,305 surgical cases. J Reconstr Microsurg 30:217–226

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhou W, Zhang WB, Yu Y, Wang Y, Mao C, Guo CB, Yu GY, Peng X (2017) Risk factors for free flap failure: a retrospective analysis of 881 free flaps for head and neck defect reconstruction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 46:941–945

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chang EI, Zhang H, Liu J, Yu P, Skoracki RJ, Hanasono MM (2016) Analysis of risk factors for flap loss and salvage in free flap head and neck reconstruction. Head Neck 38(Suppl 1):E771–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Grosshadern Clinic, Ludwig Maximilians University, Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377, Munich, Germany

    Philipp Baumeister & Maximilian Reiter

  2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Halle (Saale), Ernst-Grube-Strasse 40, 06120, Halle, Germany

    Ulrich Kisser & Christine Adderson-Kisser

Authors
  1. Ulrich Kisser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine Adderson-Kisser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philipp Baumeister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maximilian Reiter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maximilian Reiter.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kisser, U., Adderson-Kisser, C., Baumeister, P. et al. Influence of coupler size on revision rate and timing of revision after free flap tissue transfer in the head and neck. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 275, 199–206 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-017-4804-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-017-4804-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation