ReviewSeminars in plastic surgery2025
Facing a "Vessel Challenged Neck" in Head and Neck Microsurgical Reconstruction: Chang Gung Concepts, Approach, and Systematic Review.
Review in Seminars in plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microsurgical free tissue transfer has become the standard for complex head and neck reconstruction. One of the most feared scenarios is the so-called "vessel-depleted neck" (VDN), in which prior surgery, irradiation, or multiple reconstructions are thought to preclude suitable recipient vessels. However, definitions of VDN remain inconsistent, and many patients are not truly "depleted." A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. PubMed and Web of Science were searched (1980-2025) using terms related to "vessel-depleted neck," "recipient vessels," and "head and neck reconstruction." Eligible studies included case series, cohorts, and case reports describing reconstructive strategies following prior neck dissection, irradiation, or multiple reconstructions. Fifty-six reports met the inclusion criteria. In addition, we contextualized these findings with the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CGMH) experience of >10,000 microvascular reconstructions. The review identified a spectrum of recipient vessel options and technical innovations. Common second-tier choices included the transverse cervical vessels, superficial temporal system, and contralateral cervical vessels. Less common strategies involved cephalic vein transposition, internal mammary vessels, thoracoacromial, or subclavian system. Techniques to overcome pedicle length constraints included vein grafts, Corlett loops, vascular bridge flaps (VBFs), and in situ pedicle lengthening. Local and regional flaps, such as the pectoralis major (PM) and supraclavicular flaps, provided salvage options when free flaps were not feasible. At CGMH, even after multiple reconstructions, ipsilateral vessels (transverse cervical, superior thyroid, facial artery) remained usable in most patients, with contralateral or vein graft use required in fewer than 20%. The concept of a "VDN" is often overstated and may serve as a psychological barrier to optimal reconstruction. Most patients retain viable recipient vessels, and free flaps remain achievable with careful planning and surgical expertise. We advocate reframing these cases as "vessel challenged necks," emphasizing technical demands rather than depletion, to improve decision-making and outcomes.
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.