Perforator Mapping Practice for Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator Flap Reconstructions: A Survey of the Benelux Region.

BACKGROUND: Numerous new and novel imaging techniques for preoperative perforator selection in deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap planning have been introduced. To what extent, these have been adopted into or replaced routine practice has hitherto remained unknown. The purpose of this study was to identify the currently preferred technique by reconstructive surgeons, the criteria that they regard as most relevant and what impact these have on the preoperative decision-making. METHODS: An online survey consisting of 25 questions was sent to members of the Benelux Societies for Plastic Surgery. Information regarding experience and preferred imaging modality was requested. Specific questions addressed the utilization of computed tomography angiography (CTA) and factors that could inform preoperative perforator selection. Results were anonymously collected, managed using REDCap, and analyzed using Chi-square statistic. RESULTS: Seventy-nine principal surgeons could be included. A variation in surgeon experience was observed. On CTA, the preferred imaging modality, large-caliber vessels, the location of the perforator in the flap, and its intramuscular course were considered the most significant criteria. Surgeons doing more than 20 DIEP flaps per year are less concerned about the distance of the perforator from the umbilicus (p = 0.003) but more likely to choose a medial perforator (p = 0.011). No statistical difference was found in surgeons' experience between those who would choose and use one specific (medial or lateral) perforator when they are analogous on CTA, and those who would delay the decision until both perforators have been exposed. CONCLUSION: Advantages and disadvantages of the current practice of preoperative perforator selection by surgeons who are primarily responsible for harvesting a DIEP flap have been clearly identified. Indications are that these could be widely representative in which case, the quest for a protocol or modality that maximizes the benefit and minimizes harm in preoperative perforator mapping is urgently required.

Concordance between preoperative computed tomography angiographic mapping and intraoperative perforator selection for deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap breast reconstructions.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative imaging for perforator identification prior to a deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap elevation for breast reconstruction has many advantages. Currently, computed tomography (CT) angiography provides good visualization of the perforators and their course, and is thus the imaging technique of choice. The primary aim of this study was to determine the concordance between the perforators identified preoperatively and the perforators ultimately selected intraoperatively, with a standardized protocol, in a single institution. Secondly, we wanted to compare our results with those of other, similar studies and, thirdly, to identify those factors that may lead to a higher concordance. METHODS: A retrospective review was undertaken of a case series of 49 consecutive patients undergoing unilateral autologous breast reconstruction with a DIEP flap at the Gelre Hospital, in the Netherlands, over a 4-year period from 2013 to 2017. The preoperative identification and selection of perforator number and location with the aid of CT angiography scanning were compared to the intraoperative findings and preference. RESULTS: Our study revealed a concordance of 67.3% between one or more perforators advised preoperatively by the radiologist and chosen intraoperatively by the surgeon. We identified significant differences in our protocol compared to others. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirmed the benefit to both the patient and the surgeon when preoperative CT angiography is used. Scanning protocols may vary considerably and should thus be carefully scrutinized before future comparisons are made. Based on this study, the scanning range, method of selecting perforators and timing of image acquisition may have to be optimized for future prospective clinical trials.

Treatment options for mallet finger: a review.

BACKGROUND: Mallet finger is a common injury. The aim of this review is to give an overview of the different treatment options of mallet injuries and their indications, outcomes, and potential complications. METHODS: A literature-based study was conducted using the PubMed database comprising world literature from January of 1980 until January of 2010. The following search terms were used: "mallet" and "finger." RESULTS: There are many variations in the design of splints; there are, however, only a few studies that compare the type of splints with one another. Splinting appears to be effective in uncomplicated and complicated cases. Equal results have been reported for early and delayed splinting therapy. To internally fixate a mallet finger, many different techniques have been reported; however, none of these studies examined their comparisons in a controlled setting. In chronic mallet injuries, a tenodermodesis followed by splinting or a tenotomy of the central slip is usually performed. If pain and impairment persist despite previous surgical corrective attempts, an arthrodesis of the distal interphalangeal joint should be performed. CONCLUSIONS: Uncomplicated cases of mallet injuries are best treated by splinting therapy; cases that do not react to splinting therapy are best treated by surgical interventions. Controversy remains about whether mallet injuries with a larger dislocated bone fragment are best treated by surgery or by external splinting.

Reliability and validity of the Buruli ulcer functional limitation score questionnaire.

The reliability and validity of the earlier developed Buruli ulcer functional limitation score (BUFLS) questionnaire was assessed. Of 638 former Buruli ulcer patients (of 678 individuals examined), sufficient items on daily activities (>or= 13 of the 19) were applicable to calculate a score. To determine the validity, the functional limitation scores of the 638 individuals were compared with the global impression of the limitations, range of motion (ROM), and the social impact (change of occupation or education) of Buruli ulcer. To determine inter-observer reliability, the functional limitation score was reassessed in 107 participants within one and three weeks after the first interview by another interviewer and interpreter. Both global impression and ROM correlated well with the functional limitation scores (rho = 0.66 and rho = 0.61). The inter-observer reliability of 107 participants as measured by an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.86 was very good. The functional limitation scores measured in the second assessment were significantly higher than in the first assessment. This should be taken into account when the functional limitation score is used for the individual patient. The BUFLS can be used as for between group comparisons of endpoints in clinical trials and in the planning of resources.