Site Loader
Rock Street, San Francisco




Background: anaesthetic management for microvascular
reconstructive surgery is challenging and clearly effects the risk of major
complications such as flap hypo-perfusion.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

In this
systematic review we explore recent (last 7 years) clinical evidences related
to perioperative management and anaesthetic controversy of patients undergoing microvascular
reconstructive surgery, especially focused on head and neck surgery with free
flaps (FF) and breast reconstructive surgery with deep inferior epigastric
perforator flap (DIEP-flap).

Methods: a literature search of published clinical studies between 2011 and
2018 was conducted, yielding a total of 4307 papers. Only 150 were eligible,
according inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Results: 62 studies were selected for this review and categorized in 3
groups: preoperative-intraoperative-postoperative anaesthetic management and
areas of controversy for patients undergoing head and neck surgery with FF and
breast reconstructive surgery with DIEP-flap.

Discussion: anaesthetic management for flap reconstructive
surgery remains an open field of interest
with limited evidences regarding a standard care. Main components of research
currently are: the need to join standard multidisciplinary enhanced recovery
pathways, as well as the necessity to develop a standard intraoperative
management. In theatre, the recent hemodynamic parameter “Hypotension
Probability Indicator” (HPI) is promising: the advantage to predict a drop in
the mean arterial pressure can be more effective than a fluid therapy titrated
to maintain SVV less than 13%. Prospective studies are necessary to clarify.



Key words: flap reconstructive surgery, anaesthetic management, perioperative




M. P. Lauretta, Via A. Bassini 18, 00047
Marino (Rome) Italy. [email protected]










flap surgery is one of the best and fine options for reconstruction in head and
neck cancer patients, plastic, trauma and burns (1).

management in these settings has limited evidences of standard care and clearly
affects the outcome, with high impact on flap survival. Main areas of
controversy for anaesthesiologist involve the need to take part into standard multidisciplinary
enhanced recovery after surgery protocols (ERAS protocols), as well as a
standard perioperative management, especially in terms of pre-operative assessment,
hemodynamic monitoring, goal-directed fluid therapy, thermoregulation, flap
monitoring, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis, intensive therapy unit admission
(ITU), early mobilization, antibiotics guidelines, analgesia (2).





Two medical database Pubmed and Medline were queried, according
with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
(PRISMA) recommendations (3). The methodological features of this
analytic review have been registered and accepted into the International
Prospective Register Of Systematic Review (PROSPERO) database (registration
number: CRD42018082433) (4). Key words
used for literature search were: -“Intraoperative management for free flap
surgery” – “Anaesthetic management for microvascular reconstructive surgery” –
“Perioperative management for microvascular surgery” – “Anaesthetic assessment
for flap reconstructive surgery”- “Anaesthesia for head and neck reconstructive
surgery” – “Anaesthesia for plastic reconstructive surgery”- “ERAS protocols for
microvascular reconstructive surgery” -“Haemodynamic monitoring in flap
reconstructive surgery” – “Goal-directed therapy for reconstructive surgery” –
“Blood loss management in reconstructive flap surgery” – “Postoperative care
for flap reconstructive surgery”. Completed studies published in peer-reviewed
journals between January 2011 and January 2018 were considered to be eligible
and abstracts were excluded. The search criteria for inclusion in this review
were: language (English), study type (human, clinical article, clinical trial,
controlled clinical trial, controlled study, randomized controlled trials, case
report, cohort studies, institutional surveys), type of surgery (head and neck reconstructions
with FF and plastic breast reconstructions with DIEP flap). Authors
independently screened and assessed the titles, abstracts, and the full-text




A total of
4307 papers were retrieved using the keywords, only 1070 were assesses for eligibility.
According the inclusion criteria, 62 were selected and categorized in 3 groups
(Figure 1):


1.    preoperative anaesthetic management and areas of
controversy for patients undergoing microvascular reconstructive surgery

2.    Intraoperative anaesthetic management and areas of
controversy for patients undergoing microvascular reconstructive surgery

3.    Postoperative anaesthetic management and areas of
controversy for patients undergoing microvascular reconstructive surgery





      Figure 1. Flow
chart of identification of papers included in systematic review.




Preoperative anaesthetic management and areas
of controversy for patients undergoing microvascular reconstructive surgery





presenting for head and neck FFs surgery and breast reconstructive surgery are
fragile cancer patients with a number of dangerous co-morbidities (5). Hence,
pre-operative assessment and investigations play a role for the risk stratification
(6). Although technical issues are prevailing factors, clinical
characteristics also contribute to flap failure (7). The Division of Plastic
and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Southern California, investigated a
number of non-technical variable in 2015, using the American College of
Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Univariate
analysis was conducted to determine the association of FF failure with the
individual factors: age, gender, ethnicity, body mass index, intraoperative
transfusion, diabetes, smoking, alcohol, American Society of Anaesthesiologists
classification, year of operation, operative time, number of flaps, and type of
reconstruction. Flap loss rate was 4.4%. Operative time was the only
significant independent risk factor, as resulted from the multivariate logistic
regression (8). According the analysis conducted by another
plastic unit in Istanbul, patient’s age was not an independent variable for
increased risk in microvascular reconstruction. However, operative time and reconstruction
sites were associated with higher incidence of complications and ITU admissions
(9). Another important study, held in Toronto in 2016, recognized
operative time and smoking as the independent risk factors for intraoperative complications
in reconstructive breast flap surgery (10).  Several preoperative investigations play
a role in the risk stratification of these patients. Studies revealed how cardiopulmonary
exercise testing (CPET) in complex patients is pivotal to assess the functional
capacity. Many institutions routinely use CPET to design the operation and to
inform patients about risks and benefits of surgery (11). In conclusion, flap
ischemia is a multifactorial event and, according recent literature,
demographics and medical patient’s characteristics such as: age, ethnicity, radiation,
chemotherapy, medical comorbidities, smoking, are not independent risk factors.
Preoperatively, patients need to be assessed to ensure the best perioperative management
but intraoperative management and technical variables may have higher importance
for the outcome (12).


Nutrition, preoperative
fasting and preoperative education


recent evidences, the basic nutritional state should be estimated and optimised:
preoperative quantity of albumin has inverse correlation with wound dehiscence,
fistula, salivary leak, pleural effusion, renal function (13).  Preoperative fasting should be minimal. In patients
eligible for oral intake, clear solids should be allowed up to 2 hours and
clear fluids up to 6 hours before anaesthesia. (14, 15).  All patients undergoing major head and
neck cancer surgery with FFs and breast reconstructive surgery should be
adequately prepared regarding the surgical journey and evidences suggest they
should receive a systematic teaching. If anaesthetists and qualified health
professionals should share this discussion, is still not clarified, due to
shortage of specifically focused trials (16). In conclusion, the
implementation of a multidisciplinary pre-operative evaluation driven by anaesthetists,
nutritionists, other medical specialists and health practitioners may reduce post-operative
complications derived from pre-existing conditions (17).




















Intraoperative anaesthetic management and
areas of controversy for patients undergoing microvascular
reconstructive surgery



As we
highlighted in the previous chapter, intraoperative management has great
influence for the surgical outcome and the anaesthetist plays a pivotal role






Different studies, demonstrated
the predictive relationship between the quantity of intraoperative fluid administrated
and the rate of postoperative complications in FF surgery (18, 19). From the
analysis on 154 patients with head and neck reconstructions with fibular FFs, fluid
volume higher than 5500 ml was associated with an increase in medical and surgical
complications, and a cut-off value of 7000 ml was identified as the only
significant risk factor for major complications (19). FFs don’t present lymphatic
drainage, therefore, every anaesthesiologist needs to consider these characteristics
in order to maintain intravascular blood volume, prevent flap oedema and the
pro-coagulant state due to rapid administration of crystalloids (20). Regarding
the use of colloids, data have shown that volume higher than 20-30 ml/kg/24 h can
increase perioperative morbidity, and Hydroxyethyl starch seems more promising
to expand plasma volume and reduce blood viscosity if compared to
gelatine-based colloids (21). Every
patient can be identified as fluid responsive by measuring cardiac output (CO),
cardiac index (CI), stroke volume or pulse pressure variation (SVV, PPV).  According recent literature, a goal-directed
fluid therapy, titrated to keep SVV ?13%, with the use of mini invasive
arterial pulse contour device, results in improved oxygen delivery and reduces
the intravenous fluid administration, with better outcomes (22). We’ll discuss later on in this paper, other details
regarding hemodynamic monitoring.




Haemoglobin target is a sliding value in head and neck and
plastic microvascular surgery. In UK, as a resulted from a national survey, practice for blood loss in theatre is varied,
with a mean trigger for blood transfusion of Haemoglobin 7.8 g/dl (21). Even
if flap perfusion and peripheral oxygen delivery is a priority, several observational studies in head and
neck cancer have highlighted how allogenic blood transfusion is associated with
higher rate of postoperative complications and worse prognosis, and
anaesthesiologist usually follow blood conservation strategies in high-risk
patients (23).



Blood Pressure
(BP) management


BP management, again, is not
well standardised in this type of surgery, and enhancement of flap perfusion in
theatre is always a priority. The use of vasopressors in FFs surgery is a
matter of controversy. Evidence from animal models have revealed that the use
of vasopressors leads to vasoconstriction in the microcirculation of the flap,
however, this has not been shown in the clinical settings (24). According
different clinical studies, a general intraoperative well recognised target for
mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) during anastomosis is a value equal or major
than 70 mmHg, while a MAP lower than 60 mmHg is considered “hypotension” (25). Dobutamine and vasoconstrictors
can be safely used if the goals for BP and CI are not achieved with

Post Author: admin


I'm Velma!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out