Clinical applications of dynamic infrared thermography in plastic surgery: a systematic review

Background: Infrared thermography (IRT) has become an increasingly utilized adjunct to more expensive and/or invasive investigations in a range of surgical fields, no more so than in plastic surgery. The combination of functional assessment, flow characteristics and anatomical localization has led to increasing applications of this technology. This article aims to perform a systematic review of the clinical applications of IRT in plastic surgery. Methods: A systematic literature search using the keywords 'IRT' and 'dynamic infrared thermography (DIRT)' has been accomplished. A total of 147 papers were extracted from various medical databases, of which 34 articles were subjected to a full read by two independent reviewers, to ensure the papers satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies focusing on the use of IRT in breast cancer diagnosis were excluded. Results: A systematic review of 29 publications demonstrated the clinical applications of IRT in plastic surgery today. They include preoperative planning of perforators for free flaps, post operative monitoring of free flaps, use of IRT as an adjunct in burns depth analysis, in assessment of response to treatment in hemangioma and as a diagnostic test for cutaneous melanoma and carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Conclusions: Modern infrared imaging technology with improved standardization protocols is now a credible, useful non-invasive tool in clinical practice

The Pfannenstiel scar and its implications in DIEP flap harvest: a clinical anatomic study

Background Despite the utility of the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap, the presence of abdominal wall scars can limit flap perfusion. Pfannnstiel scars are among the most common abdominal scars, during which undermining at either a subfascial or suprafascial level can damage perforators. There is an anecdotal belief that raising a DIEP flap in the presence of a Pfannenstiel scar may be less reliable due to vascular disruption. Methods A clinical prospective analysis of retrospectively recorded imaging from 150 patients (300 hemi-abdominal walls) was undertaken. Preoperative imaging, with two computer software programmes used to reconstruct three dimensional (3-D) volume-rendered images and analyse vasculature, was used to accurately identify and measure perforators. Results A total of 959 perforators were identified, with 319 perforators identified in the 'Pfannenstiel scar' group and 640 perforators in the 'no abdominal scar' group. All patients, except for one patient with a Pfannenstiel scar, had one or more perforators that were larger than 1.0 mm in diameter. There were no differences in the number of DIEA perforators (6.81 vs 6.22, p = 0.2819); however, perforators of the 'Pfannenstiel scar' group were of larger mean diameter than the 'no abdominal scar' group (0.96 vs 0.85 mm (p= 0.0027). Conclusions The presence of a Pfannenstiel scar is associated with larger perforator size than controls and no diminution in overall perforator number. As such, a Pfannenstiel scar may in fact aid DIEP flap harvest, a finding consistent with anecdotal outcomes

Predictors of Reoperations in Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND: The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) procedure is regarded a safe option for autologous breast reconstruction. Reoperations, however, may occur, and there is no consensus in the literature regarding the risk factors. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with reoperations in DIEP procedure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing DIEP breast reconstruction 2007 to 2014 was performed and included a review of 433 medical charts. Surgical outcome was defined as any unanticipated reoperation requiring return to the operating room. Multivariate regression analysis was utilized to identify predictors of reoperation. The following factors were considered: age, body mass index, comorbidity, childbearing history, previous abdominal surgery, adjuvant therapy, reconstruction laterality and timing, flap and perforator characteristics, and number and size of veins. RESULTS: In total, 503 free flaps were performed in 433 patients, 363 (83.8%) unilateral and 70 (16.2%) bilateral procedures. Mean age was 51 years; 15.0% were obese; 13.4% had hypertension; 2.3% had diabetes; 42.6% received tamoxifen; 58.8% had preoperative radiotherapy; 45.6% had abdominal scars. Reoperation rate was 15.9% (80/503) and included flap failure, 2.0%; partial flap loss, 1.2%; arterial thrombosis, 2.0%; venous thrombosis, 0.8%; venous congestion, 1.2%; vein kinking, 0.6%. Other complications included bleeding, 2.2%; hematoma, 3.0%; fat necrosis, 2.8%, and infection, 0.2%. Factors negatively associated with reoperation were childbearing history (odds ratio [OR]: 3.18, P = 0.001) and dual venous drainage (OR: 1.91, P = 0.016); however, only childbearing remained significant in the multivariate analyses (OR: 4.56, P = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: The history of childbearing was found to be protective against reoperation. Number of venous anastomoses may also affect reoperation incidence, and dual venous drainage could be beneficial in nulliparous patients