Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34262835›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2021

Quantifying the Limitations of Clinical and Technology-based Flap Monitoring Strategies using a Systematic Thematic Analysis.

Richard M Kwasnicki, Alex J Noakes, Norbert Banhidy, Shehan Hettiaratchy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Role of Lactate Measurement in Flap Monitoring: An Useful Adjunct.Indian journal of plastic surgery : official publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of India · 2023
    Article
  15. Free flaps monitoring by Laser-Doppler Flowmetry in head and neck surgery.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Richard M KwasnickiDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London UK.
Alex J NoakesDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London UK.
Norbert BanhidyDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London UK.
Shehan HettiaratchyDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiple techniques exist to monitor free flap viability postoperatively, varying with practical and personal preference, yet the limitations of each technique remain unquantified. This systematic review aims to identify the most commonly reported limitations of these techniques in clinical practice.

methodsA systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science with search criteria for postoperative free flap monitoring techniques. Search results were independently screened using defined criteria by two authors and a senior clinician. Limitations of the techniques found in the discussion section of eligible articles were recorded and categorized using thematic analysis.

resultsA total of 4699 records were identified. In total, 2210 articles met the eligibility criteria and were subsequently reviewed, with 195 papers included in the final analysis. The most frequently reported limitations of clinical monitoring were interpretation requiring expertise (25% of related papers), unsuitability for buried flaps (21%), and lack of quantitative/objective values (19%). For noninvasive technologies, the limitations were lack of quantitative/objective values (21%), cost (16%), and interpretation requiring expertise (13%). For invasive technologies, the limitations were application requiring expertise (25%), equipment design and malfunction (13%), and cost (13%).

conclusionsThis is the first systematic review to quantify the limitations of different flap monitoring techniques, as reported in the literature. This information may enhance the choice in monitoring strategy for a reconstructive service, and inform the development and refinement of new flap monitoring technologies.

Identifiers

PMID34262835
PMCPMC8274739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.