Free-flap reconstruction in the doubly irradiated patient population.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for previously irradiated, unresectable, recurrent head and neck cancer has been chemotherapy alone. High-dose reirradiation with concomitant chemotherapy represents a more aggressive approach to these tumors and has afforded encouraging results with an increased fraction of long-term survivors. After reirradiation, these patients commonly present with extensive tissue loss, nonhealing wounds, contractures, and fistulas, and free-flap reconstruction is often necessary to correct the perils of oncologic treatment. METHODS: A 9-year retrospective review of 35 patients who required surgical intervention following a second round of chemoradiation was performed. Thirty-three free flaps were performed on 24 patients, and total radiation given before free tissue transfer ranged from 100 to 200 Gy. Indications for free-flap reconstruction included soft-tissue necrosis (15 of 33), tumor ablation (seven of 33), osteoradionecrosis (six of 33), oral incompetence (three of 33), tracheal perforation (one of 33), and esophageal stricture (one of 33). RESULTS: Free tissue transfer was successful in 94 percent (31 of 33) of flaps, with an overall major complication rate of 66 percent (23 of 35). Wound dehiscence (15 percent), infection (15 percent), hematoma (12 percent), fistula formation (12 percent), partial flap necrosis (9 percent), and total flap necrosis (6 percent) were the most commonly seen complications. CONCLUSIONS: Although complications are common, free tissue transfer offers the difficult reirradiated patient a successful means of wound rehabilitation. The ultimate success of closing these wounds allows for aggressive oncologic treatment, which possibly will facilitate improved survival in this patient population that struggles with a dismal overall prognosis.

New technologies meeting old professional boundaries: the emergence of carotid artery stenting.

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenosis is common and costly. Opinions differ in regard to the impact that carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) will have. Vascular surgeons, cardiologists, interventional radiologists, and neurologists all have a stake in the uptake of CAS. We sought to explore physicians' views about the safety and efficacy of CAS and the negotiation of professional boundaries in the treatment of carotid stenosis. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a qualitative analysis of key informant interviews with 15 physicians, including four internationally renowned key opinion leaders, representing five medical centers with differing experience adopting CAS. RESULTS: Variation in beliefs about the safety and efficacy of CAS within specialties was overshadowed by variation across the specialties examined. Most informants emphasized the strengths of their specialty in adopting CAS, including frequent patient care (vascular surgery, cardiology, and neurology), extensive catheter experience (cardiology, interventional radiology), and intimate knowledge of the anatomy of vascular and neurovascular disease (vascular surgery, neurology). Several themes were mentioned in regard to the diffusion of CAS, including risks of premature diffusion into low risk populations and the role of patient preferences in CAS uptake. The most common theme in regard to local management of CAS was the strength of interdisciplinary collaboration in the management of patients with carotid artery stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: CAS challenges physicians from several specialties to safely and effectively manage the uptake of an emerging technology crossing traditional specialty lines. Local collaboration of individual physicians and the departments and professional organizations they comprise, will have an important impact on how this technology is adopted.