The Utility of Smartphone-Based Thermal Imaging in the Management and Monitoring of Microvascular Flap Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Journal
Annals of plastic surgery
ISSN: 1536-3708
Titre abrégé: Ann Plast Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7805336
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2023
01 06 2023
Historique:
medline:
20
6
2023
pubmed:
19
6
2023
entrez:
19
6
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Smartphone-based thermal imaging (SBTI) has been reported in the literature to be an easy-to-use, contactless, cost-friendly alternative to standard imaging modalities in identifying flap perforators, monitoring flap perfusion, and detecting flap failure. Our systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate SBTI's accuracy in perforator identification and secondarily evaluate SBTI's utility in flap perfusion monitoring as well as ability to predict flap compromise, failure, and survival. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, a systematic review was performed using PubMed from inception to 2021. Articles were uploaded into Covidence and, following duplicate deletion, were initially screened for use of SBTI in flap procedures through title and abstract screening followed by full-text review. The following data points, if provided, were extracted from each included study: study design, number of patients, patient demographics, perforator number and location, flap number and location, room temperature, cooling method, imaging distance, time from cloth removal, primary (SBTI's accuracy in perforator identification), and secondary outcomes (prediction of flap compromise/failure/survival and cost analysis). Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan v.5. The initial search yielded 153 articles. Eleven applicable studies with a total of 430 flaps from 416 patients were ultimately included. The SBTI device assessed in all included studies was FLIR ONE. Four studies assessed the SBTI's perforated detection ability and were included in meta-analysis. Smartphone-based thermal imaging correctly identified 378 (93.3%; n = 405) perforators, and computed tomography angiography (CTA) correctly identified 402 (99.2%; n = 402), although in one study SBTI found additional perforators not detected on CTA. A random-effects model was used (I2 = 65%), and no significant difference in perforator detection ability was found between SBTI and CTA (P = 0.27). This systematic review and meta-analysis supports SBTI as user- and cost-friendly ($229.99), contactless imaging modality with perforator detection ability comparable to current criterion-standard CTA. Postoperatively, SBTI outperformed Doppler ultrasound in early detection of microvascular changes causing flap compromise, allowing for prompt tissue salvage. With a minimal learning curve, SBTI seems to be a promising method of postoperative flap perfusion monitoring able to be used by all hospital ranks. Smartphone-based thermal imaging could thus increase flap monitoring frequency and lower complication rates, although further study is warranted.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Smartphone-based thermal imaging (SBTI) has been reported in the literature to be an easy-to-use, contactless, cost-friendly alternative to standard imaging modalities in identifying flap perforators, monitoring flap perfusion, and detecting flap failure. Our systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate SBTI's accuracy in perforator identification and secondarily evaluate SBTI's utility in flap perfusion monitoring as well as ability to predict flap compromise, failure, and survival.
METHODS
Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, a systematic review was performed using PubMed from inception to 2021. Articles were uploaded into Covidence and, following duplicate deletion, were initially screened for use of SBTI in flap procedures through title and abstract screening followed by full-text review. The following data points, if provided, were extracted from each included study: study design, number of patients, patient demographics, perforator number and location, flap number and location, room temperature, cooling method, imaging distance, time from cloth removal, primary (SBTI's accuracy in perforator identification), and secondary outcomes (prediction of flap compromise/failure/survival and cost analysis). Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan v.5.
RESULTS
The initial search yielded 153 articles. Eleven applicable studies with a total of 430 flaps from 416 patients were ultimately included. The SBTI device assessed in all included studies was FLIR ONE. Four studies assessed the SBTI's perforated detection ability and were included in meta-analysis. Smartphone-based thermal imaging correctly identified 378 (93.3%; n = 405) perforators, and computed tomography angiography (CTA) correctly identified 402 (99.2%; n = 402), although in one study SBTI found additional perforators not detected on CTA. A random-effects model was used (I2 = 65%), and no significant difference in perforator detection ability was found between SBTI and CTA (P = 0.27).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis supports SBTI as user- and cost-friendly ($229.99), contactless imaging modality with perforator detection ability comparable to current criterion-standard CTA. Postoperatively, SBTI outperformed Doppler ultrasound in early detection of microvascular changes causing flap compromise, allowing for prompt tissue salvage. With a minimal learning curve, SBTI seems to be a promising method of postoperative flap perfusion monitoring able to be used by all hospital ranks. Smartphone-based thermal imaging could thus increase flap monitoring frequency and lower complication rates, although further study is warranted.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37332214
doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003343
pii: 00000637-202306004-00020
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
S420-S425Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared.
Références
Plastic Surgery Statistics. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. (n.d.). Available at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/plastic-surgery-statistics . Accessed April 20, 2022.
Bennett KG, Qi J, Kim HM, et al. Comparison of 2-year complication rates among common techniques for postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg . 2018;153:901–908.
Parmeshwar N, Sultan SM, Kim EA, et al. A systematic review of the utility of indocyanine angiography in autologous breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg . 2021;86:601–606.
Theuvenet WJ, Koeyers GF, Borghouts MH. Thermographic assessment of perforating arteries. A preoperative screening method for fasciocutaneous and musculocutaneous flaps. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg . 1986;20:25–29.
Itoh Y, Arai K. Use of recovery-enhanced thermography to localize cutaneous perforators. Ann Plast Surg . 1995;34:507–511.
Berner JE, Pereira N, Troisi L, et al. Accuracy of infrared thermography for perforator mapping: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg . 2021;74:1173–1179.
John HE, Niumsawatt V, Rozen WM, et al. Clinical applications of dynamic infrared thermography in plastic surgery: a systematic review. Gland Surg . 2016;5:122–132.
Hallock GG. The use of smartphone thermography to more safely unmask and preserve circulation to keystone advancement flaps in the lower extremity. Injury . 2020;51(suppl 4):S121–S125.
Weum S, Mercer JB, de Weerd L. Evaluation of dynamic infrared thermography as an alternative to CT angiography for perforator mapping in breast reconstruction: a clinical study. BMC Med Imaging . 2016;16:43.
Hardwicke JT, Osmani O, Skillman JM. Detection of perforators using smartphone thermal imaging. Plast Reconstr Surg . 2016;137:39–41.
Pereira N, Valenzuela D, Mangelsdorff G, et al. Detection of perforators for free flap planning using smartphone thermal imaging: a concordance study with computed tomographic angiography in 120 perforators. Plast Reconstr Surg . 2018;141:787–792.
Thiessen FEF, Vermeersch N, Tondu T, et al. Dynamic infrared thermography (DIRT) in DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a clinical study with a standardized measurement setup. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol . 2020;252:166–173.
Verstockt J, Thiessen F, Cloostermans B, et al. DIEP flap breast reconstructions: thermographic assistance as a possibility for perforator mapping and improvement of DIEP flap quality. Appl Opt . 2020;59:e48–e56.
Meyer A, Roof S, Gray ML, et al. Thermal imaging for microvascular free tissue transfer monitoring: feasibility study using a low cost, commercially available mobile phone imaging system. Head Neck . 2020;42:2941–2947.
Rabbani MJ, Ilyas A, Rabbani A, et al. Accuracy of thermal imaging camera in identification of perforators. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak . 2020;30:512–515.
Nischwitz SP, Luze H, Schellnegger M, et al. Thermal, hyperspectral, and laser Doppler imaging: non-invasive tools for detection of the deep inferior epigastric artery perforators—a prospective comparison study. J Pers Med . 2021;11:1005.
Phillips CJ, Barron MR, Kuckelman J, et al. Mobile smartphone thermal imaging characterization and identification of microvascular flow insufficiencies in deep inferior epigastric artery perforator free flaps. J Surg Res . 2021;261:394–399.
Shokri T, Lighthall JG. Perfusion dynamics in pedicled and free tissue reconstruction: infrared thermography and laser fluorescence video angiography. Am J Otolaryngol . 2021;42:102751.
Rabbani MJ, Bhatti AZ, Shahzad A. Flap monitoring using thermal imaging camera: a contactless method. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak . 2021;30:703–706.
Curran A, Klein M, Hepokoski M, et al. Improving the accuracy of infrared measurements of skin temperature. Extrem Physiol Med . 2015;4(suppl 1):A140.
Thiessen FEF, Tondu T, Vermeersch N, et al. Dynamic infrared thermography (DIRT) in deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction: standardization of the measurement set-up. Gland Surg . 2019;8:799–805.