SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2023
A systematic review of the scientific evidence of venous supercharging in autologous breast reconstruction with abdominally based flaps.
Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAbdominally based free flaps are commonly used in breast reconstruction. A frequent complication is venous congestion, which might contribute to around 40% of flap failures. One way to deal with it is venous supercharging. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the scientific evidence for the effects of venous supercharging.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane library. The included articles were critically appraised, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.
resultsThirty-six studies were included. Most studies had serious study limitations and problems with directness. Three studies report 'routine' use of venous supercharging and performed it prophylactically in patients who did not have clinical signs of venous congestion. Seventeen studies report on flap complications, of which one is a randomised controlled trial demonstrating statistically significant lower complication rates in the intervention group. The overall certainty of evidence for the effect of a venous supercharging on flap complications, length of hospital stay and operative time, in patients without clinical signs of venous congestion, is very low (GRADE ⊕ ⊕ ⊝ ⊝), and low on and surgical takebacks (GRADE ⊕ ⊕ ⊝ ⊝). Twenty-one studies presented data on strategies and overall certainty of evidence for using radiological findings, preoperative measurements, and clinical risk factors to make decisions on venous supercharging is very low (GRADE ⊕ ⊝ ⊝ ⊝).
conclusionThere is little scientific evidence for how to predict in which cases, without clinical signs of venous congestion, venous supercharging should be performed. The complication rate might be lower in patients in which a prophylactic venous anastomosis has been performed.
trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42022353591).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.