The Versatility of the DCIA Free Flap: A Forgotten Flap? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Journal
Journal of reconstructive microsurgery
ISSN: 1098-8947
Titre abrégé: J Reconstr Microsurg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8502670
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Jun 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
29
8
2021
medline:
22
6
2022
entrez:
28
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Studies reporting on the deep circumflex iliac artery (DCIA) free flap are restricted to a limited number of patients and areas of application. The aim of this review was to assess the reliability and versatility of the DCIA free flap during reconstruction. A comprehensive review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines using PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and SCOPUS. A critical analysis of pooled data was performed to assess outcomes employing the DCIA free flap. A total of 445 DCIA free flaps were included. The main recipient sites were head and neck (72.35%), lower extremity (20.67%), and upper extremity (6.74%). The main indications for reconstruction were tumor resection (73.8%) and trauma (17.43%). Fifty non-DCIA flaps were required to finalize the reconstruction of several defects. The pooled flap failure rate using the DCIA free flap was 4% (95% confidence interval: 1-8%). No significant heterogeneity was present across studies (Q statistic 22.12, The DCIA free flap has shown to be a versatile reconstructive alternative for head and neck and short-medium size limb defects. However, the complexity of functions, the recipient site location, and a potential large defect can detract from the use of the DCIA free flap as an initial reconstructive option for head and neck and extensive limb defects.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Studies reporting on the deep circumflex iliac artery (DCIA) free flap are restricted to a limited number of patients and areas of application. The aim of this review was to assess the reliability and versatility of the DCIA free flap during reconstruction.
METHODS
METHODS
A comprehensive review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines using PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and SCOPUS. A critical analysis of pooled data was performed to assess outcomes employing the DCIA free flap.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 445 DCIA free flaps were included. The main recipient sites were head and neck (72.35%), lower extremity (20.67%), and upper extremity (6.74%). The main indications for reconstruction were tumor resection (73.8%) and trauma (17.43%). Fifty non-DCIA flaps were required to finalize the reconstruction of several defects. The pooled flap failure rate using the DCIA free flap was 4% (95% confidence interval: 1-8%). No significant heterogeneity was present across studies (Q statistic 22.12,
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The DCIA free flap has shown to be a versatile reconstructive alternative for head and neck and short-medium size limb defects. However, the complexity of functions, the recipient site location, and a potential large defect can detract from the use of the DCIA free flap as an initial reconstructive option for head and neck and extensive limb defects.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34454408
doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1733978
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
378-389Informations de copyright
Thieme. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None declared.