Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39897266›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Transfusion Rates in Free Flap Breast Reconstruction Patients: A Single-Centre Experience.

Oliver Blanshard, Lucinda Knight, Toby Noton, Fateha Chowdhury, Georgina Williams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Oliver BlanshardPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, GBR.
Lucinda KnightPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, GBR.
Toby NotonPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, GBR.
Fateha ChowdhuryHematology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, GBR.
Georgina WilliamsPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Previous studies have demonstrated low transfusion rates in breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps. We often employ the transverse upper gracilis (TUG) flap; however, perioperative transfusion rates have not previously been studied in this group. Due to the different dissection and exposure required, transfusion rates may vary. We aim to ensure that perioperative resource use is appropriate and efficient, particularly group and save (G&S) sampling preoperatively. The objective of this study is to quantify transfusion rates in all patients undergoing free flap-based breast reconstruction and to determine the necessity of preoperative G&S sampling. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the electronic patient records, the electronic transfusion system, operation notes, and prescription records of all patients undergoing breast reconstruction using free-flap tissue transfer over one year. We identified transfusion of red blood cells and the current practice of perioperative G&S sampling in this patient group. These data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results Of the 124 patients undergoing breast reconstruction with a free flap, a DIEP-based flap was deployed in 105, and a TUG flap in 14; in the remaining five, a selection of other flaps were utilised. Three patients required transfusion of blood products during their admission (2.4%), all after DIEP flap-based reconstructions. All received two units of packed red blood cells, with one transfusion on each of days one to three postoperatively. The indication for all three was slow but ongoing bleeding with low haemoglobin (less than 80 g/L) on routine full blood count. All recovered well following this. We found a low rate of transfusion in patients undergoing free flap breast reconstruction, with only three of 124 requiring transfusion (2.4%), all DIEP flaps. In addition to the published literature regarding DIEP flaps, we also include several TUG flaps in this cohort and several other flap types. None of the three transfusions were emergent in nature; all were completed with fully cross-matched blood according to local protocols. Conclusion We recommend that preoperative G&S sampling is not routinely necessary for patients undergoing free flap breast reconstruction. Preoperative G&S should be considered for those with a risk of atypical anti-red cell antibodies (for example, if previously transfused or pregnant), as cross-matched blood may take several days to be made available. We expect this judicious use of G&S sampling to significantly reduce costs and laboratory resource use without a significant effect on the use of emergency red cell units.

Indexed as

autologous breast reconstructionbreast reconstruction surgerydeep inferior epigastric perforator flapgroup and savepost-operative haemorrhagepre-operative assessmenttransfusion requirementstransverse upper gracillis flap

Identifiers

PMID39897266
PMCPMC11786788

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.