Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36675725›Full record

ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022

Preoperative Perforator Mapping in DIEP Flaps for Breast Reconstruction. The Impact of New Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Techniques.

Max J Zinser, Nadja Kröger, Wolfram Malter, Tino Schulz, Michael Puesken, Peter Mallmann, Matthias Zirk, Kai Schröder, Christoph Andree, Kathrin Seidenstuecker and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
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

15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Max J ZinserDivision of Plastic-, Reconstructive- and Aesthetic Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 32, 50937 Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8017-9543
Nadja KrögerDivision of Plastic-, Reconstructive- and Aesthetic Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 32, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Wolfram MalterBreast Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 32, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Tino SchulzDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Sana-Clinic, Gräulinger Str. 120, 40625 Düsseldorf-Gerresheim, Germany.
Michael PueskenInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 32, 50937 Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0036-1653
Peter MallmannBreast Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 32, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Matthias ZirkDivision of Plastic-, Reconstructive- and Aesthetic Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 32, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Kai SchröderDivision of Plastic-, Reconstructive- and Aesthetic Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 32, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Christoph AndreeDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Sana-Clinic, Gräulinger Str. 120, 40625 Düsseldorf-Gerresheim, Germany.
Kathrin SeidenstueckerDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Sana-Clinic, Urdenbacher Allee 83, 40593 Düsseldorf-Benrath, Germany.
David MaintzInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 32, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Ralf SmeetsDivision of Regenerative Orofacial Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20251 Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0207-5474
Christian EichlerBreast Center, St. Franziskus-Hospital, Hohenzollernring 72, 48145 Münster, Germany.
Oliver C ThammDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University Witten-Herdecke, Helios Hospital Berlin-Buch, Schwanebecker Chaussee 50, 13125 Berlin, Germany.
Carola HeneweerInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 32, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
University Hospital Cologne · DESana Klinikum · DEHelios Hospital Berlin-Buch · DESt. Franziskus Hospital · DEUniversität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep inferior epigastric artery flaps (DIEP) represent the gold standard of autologous breast reconstruction. Due to significant variations in vascular anatomy, preoperative perforator mapping (PM) is mandatory in order to ensure the presence of a sufficient perforator within the flap. In this regard, CT angiography (CTA) is currently the method of choice. Therefore, we investigated the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) techniques for preoperative PM in comparison to CTA. Patients underwent PM, utilizing both CTA and CEUS techniques. Documentation included the course of the vascular pedicle through the rectus muscle (M), fascial penetration (F), the subcutaneous plexus (P) and the skin point (SP) on either side of the abdomen. Thus, contrast-enhanced B-Flow (BCEUS), B-Flow ultrasound (BUS), CEUS, color Doppler ultrasound (CDUS) and CTA were evaluated in terms of the diagnostic consistency and effectiveness of PM. Precision (∆L) was then calculated in relation to the actual intraoperative location. Statistical analysis included Kruskall-Wallis, Levene and Bonferroni tests, as well as Spearman correlations. A total of 39 DIEP flaps were analyzed. Only CTA (∆L = 2.85 mm) and BCEUS (∆L = 4.57 mm) enabled complete PM, also including P and SP, whereas CDUS, CEUS and BUS enabled clear PM throughout M and F only. Regarding the number of detected perforators, PM techniques are ranked from high to low as follows: CTA, BCEUS, BUS, CEUS and CDUS. CTA and BCEUS showed sufficient diagnostic consistency for SP, P and F, while CDUS and CTA had a superior performance for M. BCEUS offers precise image-controlled surface tags and dynamic information for PM without imposing radiation and may, therefore, be considered a feasible add-on or alternative to CTA. However, BCEUS requires an experienced examiner and is more time-consuming.

Indexed as

autologous breast reconstructionB-flow imagingcontrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)CT angiography (CTA)DIEP flapperforator mapping

Identifiers

PMID36675725
PMCPMC9862612
OpenAlexW4313415319

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.