Free versus Pedicled Flaps for Lower Limb Reconstruction: A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

Background: Free and pedicled flaps are both valuable surgical strategies for lower limb reconstruction. Evidence that compares both techniques is scarce. Our aim is to synthetise all the comparative studies by conducting a meta-analysis to identify post-operative outcomes. Method: A systematic review of pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Web of Science was conducted, aiming at articles comparing the outcomes of free versus pedicled flaps in lower limb reconstruction. A pooled analysis with the Mantel and Haenszel methods and random effect analysis provided results as a risk ratio with a 95% confidence interval. Results: 10 retrospective studies were selected. While the flap necrosis rate did not differ significantly between techniques (RR 1.35, 95%CI 0.76-2.39, p= 0.31), the partial flap necrosis rate was significantly lower in free flaps (RR 0.45, 95%CI 0.22-0.91, p= 0.03). The overall complication rate (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.64-1.07, p= 0.16) and revision surgery rate (RR 1.38, 95%CI 0.55-3.50, p= 0.49) did not differ significantly. No significant difference was found in the high aesthetic satisfaction rate (RR 1.76, 95%CI 0.57-5.41, p= 0.32) and post-operative infection rate (RR 0.85, 95%CI 0.55-1.33, p= 0.48). Conclusion: Despite important variability in the choice of flaps and outcomes reported among studies, free and pedicled flaps appear to be reliable surgical strategies for lower limb reconstruction with similar surgical outcomes.</p

A COVID-19-Related Retinopathy Case Report

The recent outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has been declared a worldwide pandemic by the WHO. Within various multi-organ involvements, several ocular manifestations have been described. We report the case of a patient diagnosed with COVID-19 who presented with a progressive increase of bilateral cotton wool spots over a 1-week period, despite quick and complete recovery of systemic signs of the disease and no ocular symptoms. We followed the evolution of such lesions over a 3-month period. Here, we underline the importance of retinal screening even if no ocular symptom is reported. Furthermore, we demonstrate the essential role of fundus examination as a reflection of systemic vascular changes.</p

Retinal manifestations in patients with COVID-19: a prospective Cohort Study

The recent outbreak of the Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has been declared a worldwide pandemic. Within various multi-organ involvement, several ocular manifestations have been described, such as conjunctivitis and retinopathy. The prevalence and severity of retinal lesions and their relation to the severity of the systemic disease are unknown. We performed a prospective, observational study on 172 consecutively hospitalized patients with acute confirmed COVID-19 infection. All patients underwent screening widefield fundus photography at the time of hospital admission. Despite no ocular or vision-related symptoms, we found cotton wool spots (CWS) and/or hemorrhages in 19/172 patients (11%). Diabetes history, overweight, and elevated C-reactive protein were more frequently observed among patients with retinal abnormalities, while a history of systemic hypertension was more frequently observed among patients without retinal findings. At a 3-month follow-up visit, CWS had subsided in all patients.</p

Muscle vs. Fasciocutaneous Microvascular Free Flaps for Lower Limb Reconstruction: A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

Background: Lower extremity microvascular reconstruction aims at restoring function and preventing infection while ensuring optimal cosmetic outcomes. Muscle (M) or fasciocutaneous (FC) free flaps are alternatively used to treat similar conditions. However, it is unclear whether one option might be considered superior in terms of clinical outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing M and FC flaps to evaluate this issue. Methods: The PRISMA guidelines were followed to perform a systematic search of the English literature. We included all articles comparing M and FC flap reconstructions for lower limb soft tissue defects following trauma, infection, or tumor resection. We considered flap loss, postoperative infection, and donor site morbidity as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included minor recipient site complications and the need for revision surgery. Results: A total of 10 articles involving 1340 patients receiving 1346 flaps were retrieved, corresponding to 782 M flaps and 564 FC flaps. The sizes of the studies ranged from 39 to 518 patients. We observed statistically significant differences (p &lt; 0.05) in terms of donor site morbidity and total flap loss with better outcomes for FC free flaps. Moreover, the majority of authors preferred FC flaps because of the greater aesthetic satisfaction and lesser rates of postoperative infection. Conclusion: Our data suggest that both M and FC free flaps are safe and effective options for lower limb reconstruction following trauma, infection, or tumor resection, although FC flaps tend to provide stronger clinical benefits. Further research should include larger randomized studies to confirm these data.</p

Medial femoral condyle free flap : a systematic review and proportional meta-analysis of applications and surgical outcomes

Background: Recalcitrant bone nonunion and osseous defect treatment is challenging and often requires vascularized bone transfer. The medial femoral condyle flap has become an increasingly popular option for reconstruction. The study aims at reviewing its different applications and synthesizing its surgical outcomes. Method: A systematic review including all studies assessing surgical outcomes of free medial femoral condyle flap for bone reconstruction in adults was conducted on January 31, 2023. Flap failure and postoperative complications were synthesized with a proportional meta-analysis. Results: Forty articles describing bony reconstruction in the head and neck, upper limb, and lower limb areas were selected. Indications ranged from bony nonunion and bone defects to avascular bone necrosis. Multiple flaps were raised as either pure periosteal, cortico-periosteal, cortico-cancellous-periosteal, or cortico-chondro-periosteal. A minority of composite flaps were reported. Overall failure rate was 1% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.00-0.08] in head &amp; neck applications, 4% in the lower limb (95% CI, 0.00-0.16), 2% in the upper limb (95% CI, 0.00-0.06), and 1% in articles analyzing various locations simultaneously (95% CI, 0.00-0.04). Overall donor site complication rate was 4% (95% CI, 0.01-0.06). Major reported complications were: femoral fractures (n = 3), superficial femoral artery injury (n = 1), medial collateral ligament injury (n = 1), and septic shock due to pace-maker colonization (n = 1). Conclusion: The medial femoral condyle flap is a versatile option for bone reconstruction with high success rates and low donor site morbidity.</p

The advantages of hypnosis intervention on breast cancer surgery and adjuvant therapy.

BACKGROUND: In oncology, hypnosis has been used for pain relief in metastatic patients but rarely for induction of anesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Between January 2010 and October 2015, 300 patients from our Breast Clinic (Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Université catholique de Louvain) were included in an observational, non-randomized study approved by our local ethics committee (ClinicalTrials.gov - NCT03003611). The hypothesis of our study was that hypnosis intervention could decrease side effects of breast surgery. 150 consecutive patients underwent breast surgery while on general anesthesia (group I), and 150 consecutive patients underwent the same surgical procedures while on hypnosis sedation (group II). After surgery, in each group, 32 patients received chemotherapy, radiotherapy was administered to 123 patients, and 115 patients received endocrine therapy. RESULTS: Duration of hospitalization was statistically significantly reduced in group II versus group I: 3 versus 4.1 days (p = 0.0000057) for all surgical procedures. The number of post-mastectomy lymph punctures was reduced in group II (1-3, median value n = 1.5) versus group I (2-5, median value n = 3.1) (p = 0.01), as was the quantity of lymph removed (103 ml versus 462.7 ml) (p = 0.0297) in the group of mastectomies. Anxiety scale was also statistically reduced in the postoperative period among the group of patients undergoing surgery while on hypnosis sedation (p = 0.0000000000000002). The incidence of asthenia during chemotherapy was statistically decreased (p = 0.01) in group II. In this group, there was a statistically non-significant trend towards a decrease in the incidence of nausea/vomiting (p = 0.1), and the frequency of radiodermitis (p = 0.002) and post-radiotherapy asthenia (p = 0.000000881) was also reduced. Finally, the incidence of hot flashes (p = 0.0000000000021), joint and muscle pain (p = 0.0000000000021) and asthenia while on endocrine therapy (p = 0.000000022) were statistically significantly decreased in group II. DISCUSSION: Hypnosis sedation exerts beneficial effects on nearly all modalities of breast cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: Benefits of hypnosis sedation on breast cancer treatment are very encouraging and further promote the concept of integrative oncology

The advantages of hypnosis intervention on breast cancer surgery and adjuvant therapy

BACKGROUND: In oncology, hypnosis has been used for pain relief in metastatic patients but rarely for induction of anesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Between January 2010 and October 2015, 300 patients from our Breast Clinic (Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Université catholique de Louvain) were included in an observational, non-randomized study approved by our local ethics committee (ClinicalTrials.gov - NCT03003611). The hypothesis of our study was that hypnosis intervention could decrease side effects of breast surgery. 150 consecutive patients underwent breast surgery while on general anesthesia (group I), and 150 consecutive patients underwent the same surgical procedures while on hypnosis sedation (group II). After surgery, in each group, 32 patients received chemotherapy, radiotherapy was administered to 123 patients, and 115 patients received endocrine therapy. RESULTS: Duration of hospitalization was statistically significantly reduced in group II versus group I: 3 versus 4.1 days (p = 0.0000057) for all surgical procedures. The number of post-mastectomy lymph punctures was reduced in group II (1-3, median value n = 1.5) versus group I (2-5, median value n = 3.1) (p = 0.01), as was the quantity of lymph removed (103 ml versus 462.7 ml) (p = 0.0297) in the group of mastectomies. Anxiety scale was also statistically reduced in the postoperative period among the group of patients undergoing surgery while on hypnosis sedation (p = 0.0000000000000002). The incidence of asthenia during chemotherapy was statistically decreased (p = 0.01) in group II. In this group, there was a statistically non-significant trend towards a decrease in the incidence of nausea/vomiting (p = 0.1), and the frequency of radiodermitis (p = 0.002) and post-radiotherapy asthenia (p = 0.000000881) was also reduced. Finally, the incidence of hot flashes (p = 0.0000000000021), joint and muscle pain (p = 0.0000000000021) and asthenia while on endocrine therapy (p = 0.000000022) were statistically significantly decreased in group II. DISCUSSION: Hypnosis sedation exerts beneficial effects on nearly all modalities of breast cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: Benefits of hypnosis sedation on breast cancer treatment are very encouraging and further promote the concept of integrative oncology

The advantages of hypnosis intervention on breast cancer surgery and adjuvant therapy.

BACKGROUND: In oncology, hypnosis has been used for pain relief in metastatic patients but rarely for induction of anesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Between January 2010 and October 2015, 300 patients from our Breast Clinic (Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Université catholique de Louvain) were included in an observational, non-randomized study approved by our local ethics committee (ClinicalTrials.gov - NCT03003611). The hypothesis of our study was that hypnosis intervention could decrease side effects of breast surgery. 150 consecutive patients underwent breast surgery while on general anesthesia (group I), and 150 consecutive patients underwent the same surgical procedures while on hypnosis sedation (group II). After surgery, in each group, 32 patients received chemotherapy, radiotherapy was administered to 123 patients, and 115 patients received endocrine therapy. RESULTS: Duration of hospitalization was statistically significantly reduced in group II versus group I: 3 versus 4.1 days (p = 0.0000057) for all surgical procedures. The number of post-mastectomy lymph punctures was reduced in group II (1-3, median value n = 1.5) versus group I (2-5, median value n = 3.1) (p = 0.01), as was the quantity of lymph removed (103 ml versus 462.7 ml) (p = 0.0297) in the group of mastectomies. Anxiety scale was also statistically reduced in the postoperative period among the group of patients undergoing surgery while on hypnosis sedation (p = 0.0000000000000002). The incidence of asthenia during chemotherapy was statistically decreased (p = 0.01) in group II. In this group, there was a statistically non-significant trend towards a decrease in the incidence of nausea/vomiting (p = 0.1), and the frequency of radiodermitis (p = 0.002) and post-radiotherapy asthenia (p = 0.000000881) was also reduced. Finally, the incidence of hot flashes (p = 0.0000000000021), joint and muscle pain (p = 0.0000000000021) and asthenia while on endocrine therapy (p = 0.000000022) were statistically significantly decreased in group II. DISCUSSION: Hypnosis sedation exerts beneficial effects on nearly all modalities of breast cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: Benefits of hypnosis sedation on breast cancer treatment are very encouraging and further promote the concept of integrative oncology