Is there a difference in venous thrombosis rate in free flap anastomoses based on coupler diameter? A systematic review. Does Size Really Matter?

D D Krijgh, B Tellier, T Teunis, W Maarse, J H Coert
Author Information
  1. D D Krijgh: Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  2. B Tellier: Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  3. T Teunis: Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  4. W Maarse: Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  5. J H Coert: Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The adage is to use the largest anastomotic coupler device (coupler) size possible, since smaller an anastomosis might be more susceptible to thrombosis. It is unclear if this wisdom is supported by data. This study tests the hypothesis that there is no difference in the reported literature in thrombosis rate between different coupler sizes.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. After screening 235 studies, we included 11 retrospective case-series. According to the criteria of Newcastle-Ottowa Scale, quality score ranged from 2 to 4 (out of 5) and funnel plots indicated publication bias. We included a total of 5930 coupled anastomoses. We calculated thrombosis rate per coupler diameter with exact confidence intervals (CIs). We regard non-overlapping CIs as a significant difference.
RESULTS: Nine studies reported no difference in thrombosis rate based on coupler size. Two studies report a potentially greater thrombosis rates in smaller sizes: (1) 2.0 mm 27% (95% CI 17%-40%, 17/62 cases) vs. 3.0 mm 6.3% (95% CI 2.8%-12%, 8/126 cases) and (2) 1.5 mm 6.9% (95% CI 2.8%-14%, 7/101 cases) vs. 3.0 mm group 1.2% (95% CI 0.64%-2.1%, 13/1079).
CONCLUSION: There is some evidence that suggests that smaller coupler sizes are associated with greater thrombosis rate, but the current available evidence has limitations. Performing a second anastomosis, in case, the first anastomosis is performed with a coupler size of 1.0, 1.5, or even 2.0 mm, can potentially reduce this rate, however, this remains to be determined.

Keywords

References

Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Oct;44(10):1231-5 [PMID: 26254820]
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018 Jan;275(1):199-206 [PMID: 29127507]
Eur J Epidemiol. 2010 Sep;25(9):603-5 [PMID: 20652370]
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016 Jul;69(7):894-906 [PMID: 26980600]
Microsurgery. 2013 Oct;33(7):514-8 [PMID: 24038542]
J Reconstr Microsurg. 2014 Jul;30(6):413-8 [PMID: 24960200]
Microsurgery. 2008;28(6):407-11 [PMID: 18623164]
Syst Rev. 2018 Nov 13;7(1):186 [PMID: 30424802]
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999 Aug;125(8):869-72 [PMID: 10448733]
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010 Mar;125(3):792-8 [PMID: 20195107]
J Reconstr Microsurg. 2016 Mar;32(3):178-82 [PMID: 26372685]
Ann Plast Surg. 2006 Apr;56(4):365-8 [PMID: 16557063]
Ann Plast Surg. 2014 Feb;72(2):176-9 [PMID: 23241773]
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Dec;140(6):1293-1300 [PMID: 28820839]
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097 [PMID: 19621072]
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1996 May;122(5):529-32 [PMID: 8615971]
Surgery. 1962 Dec;52:918-31 [PMID: 13937508]
Microsurgery. 1994;15(6):421-3 [PMID: 7968466]

Word Cloud

Similar Articles

Cited By