Outcomes of Single Anastomoses for Superficial and Deep-System Venous Drainage of Radial Forearm Free Flaps.

OBJECTIVE: Venous insufficiency occurs in radial forearm free flaps (RFFFs) when either the deep venous system (DVS) or superficial venous system (SVS) is used as the venous outlet. We report our experience using the antecubital perforating vein (APV) in a single-vessel anastomosis to the median-cubital or cephalic vein to drain both systems. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Single, academic, tertiary care center. METHODS: Data were collected from 72 patients who underwent RFFF from October 2009 to January 2017. In all cases, DVS and SVS were dissected, and an APV single-vessel anastomosis was attempted. RESULTS: Anatomical variations precluded single-vessel anastomosis in 11 (15.3%) cases. In 61 (84.7%) cases, single-vessel anastomosis produced unobstructed drainage for DVS and SVS without intrinsic venous insufficiency. Venous thrombosis and total loss occurred in 2 (3.3%) and 1 (1.6%) patients, respectively. Proximal dissection of the cephalic vein addressed a vessel-depleted neck in 3 cases. CONCLUSION: The antecubital perforating vein is present and functional in most patients, allowing for single anastomosis techniques for RFFF. Antecubital perforators capture DVS and SVS outflow through a single, extended venous pedicle, eliminating the risk of venous insufficiency and need for vein grafts.

American Society of Anesthesiologists Class as Predictor for Perioperative Morbidity in Head and Neck Free Flaps.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of free flaps in low- versus high-risk American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classes utilizing a standardized perioperative clinical pathway. STUDY DESIGN: Case series with chart review. SETTING: Single tertiary care academic institution. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Data were collected from 301 patients who underwent 305 free flap reconstructions for head and neck defects from January 2012 to March 2016 by a single surgeon (M.M.). A standardized perioperative clinical pathway was utilized for all patients, aimed at abbreviating hospital stay and minimizing intensive care unit stay. Data included ASA classification, comorbidities, length of hospitalization, intensive care unit stay, 30-day mortality/readmission, discharge disposition, flap survival, and postoperative complications. Low-risk ASA classes were defined as 1 and 2 (n = 53) and high risk as 3 and 4 (n = 248). RESULTS: Total medical complication rates (P = .012) were mildly increased in the high-risk group, as a result of increased minor-not major-medical complication rates (P = .007). Discharge to a nursing or rehabilitation facility was found to be more common in the high-risk group (P = .024). All other outcomes were not statistically different between the cohorts. CONCLUSION: The ASA classification system is a validated tool in determining perioperative risk. We found that minor medical complications and discharge to a rehabilitation/nursing facility were increased in the high-risk ASA classes; otherwise, there were no statistical differences between the groups. These findings suggest that the ASA classification may be helpful for preoperative discharge planning and counseling but should not be used for patient selection or to assess candidacy for the procedure.