MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2027936162 · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e318177462b

A New Preoperative Imaging Modality for Free Flaps in Breast Reconstruction: Computed Tomographic Angiography

2008· article· en· W2027936162 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Warren M. Rozen, Timothy J. Phillips, Mark W. Ashton, Damien Stella, G. Ian Taylor

Notice bibliographique

RevuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineBreast reconstructionAngiographyComputed tomographic angiographyRadiologyComputed tomography angiographyDIEP flapRectus abdominis muscleTomographyNuclear medicineBreast imagingTomographic reconstructionMammographyBreast cancerSurgeryCancer

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Sir: Abdominal donor-site free flaps are increasingly used for autologous breast reconstruction. With significant variation in individual vascular anatomy, preoperative imaging is essential.1 The standard imaging modality of the deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEA) has been either Doppler or color duplex ultrasonography,2 with both used extensively for transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) and DIEA perforator flaps. However, inconsistencies with operative findings have perpetuated the search for improved imaging modalities. Computed tomographic angiography is a noninvasive and effective investigation for mapping vasculature that has been used previously in various body regions.3,4 To our knowledge, computed tomographic angiography has not been described for preoperative imaging in breast reconstruction. In 2006, a 54-year-old woman undergoing bilateral TRAM flap breast reconstructions underwent preoperative abdominal wall imaging with both Doppler ultrasonography (Philips HDI 5000 unit; Phillips Electronics Company, Eindhoven, The Netherlands) and helical computed tomographic angiography (Siemens Somatom Sensation 64-slice computed tomographic scanner; Siemens Medical Solutions, Malvern, Pa.) with 100 ml of intravenous Ultravist 370 contrast (Berlex Canada, Montreal, Quebec, Canada). Doppler imaging revealed a single-trunk DIEA, with no major perforators or branches identified. Computed tomographic angiographic reconstructions revealed a bifurcating DIEA with two large trunks and several large perforators, with at least one large 2.5-mm-diameter perforator (Figs. 1 and 2).Fig. 1.: Computed tomographic angiogram of the abdominal wall vasculature, with coronal views highlighting the DIEA system. Lateral images demonstrated the precise location and size of several large periumbilical perforators (Fig. 2). The reconstructed images also identified the location, size, and course of the superficial inferior epigastric arteries.Fig. 2.: Computed tomographic angiogram of the abdominal wall vasculature, with lateral reconstructions highlighting the periumbilical perforators.At the time of writing, computed tomographic angiography had not previously been described for preoperative imaging in breast reconstruction. However, its effectiveness in other free flap operations certainly suggests its suitability.3,4 We demonstrate this application of computed tomographic angiography, comparing findings to conventional Doppler ultrasonography. Computed tomographic angiography was highly effective at mapping the course of the DIEA, highlighted by the branching pattern revealed on computed tomographic angiography but missed on Doppler imaging. In addition, the computed tomographic angiography was presented in a manner more suitable to the surgeon in the operating theater. These factors facilitated reduced intraoperative dissection times and the avoidance of surgical error in our case. Computed tomographic angiography was proficient at identifying large perforators of the DIEA, with no perforators identified on Doppler imaging, despite large perforators confirmed during surgery. This suggests that even if perforators were identified on Doppler imaging, larger perforators may still be missed, confirming the high false-negative rates and interobserver variability for Doppler imaging in previous studies. Computed tomographic angiography also effectively identified the superficial inferior epigastric arteries, further enhancing preoperative decision making, for consideration of superficial inferior epigastric artery perforator flaps. In addition, it took less time to perform, taking approximately 15 minutes, compared with 2 hours for perforator mapping with Doppler imaging.2,5 Computed tomographic angiography is noninvasive but associated with some radiation exposure, equivalent to or less than that of a staging abdominal computed tomographic scan.5 The two scans can be performed simultaneously, to avoid multiple presentations and facilitate shorter preoperative investigation times. In subsequent studies, we have obtained more than 70 computed tomographic angiograms for the preoperative imaging of the DIEA and its perforators. These have been compared with Doppler ultrasound and magnetic resonance angiography scans. Computed tomographic angiography has remained the most accurate imaging modality and the one with the highest resolution of those available. We have instituted improvements in computed tomographic angiography technique, maximizing the arterial phase for perforator filling. This eliminates rectus abdominis and venous filling interference. This can be achieved by timing the contrast bolus to the DIEA and scanning from caudal to cranial. Computed tomographic angiography is a suitable alternative to Doppler ultrasonography for the preoperative imaging of the abdominal wall vasculature for TRAM and DIEA perforator flaps. It is effective at demonstrating both the deep and superficial epigastric arterial anatomy and was superior to ultrasonography in its anatomical account. Its use facilitated rapid intraoperative dissection times and avoided surgical error. Warren M. Rozen, M.B.B.S., P.G.Dip.Surg.Anat. Jack Brockhoff Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Research Unit University of Melbourne Timoth J. Phillips, M.B.B.S., P.G.Dip.Surg.Anat. Department of Radiology Royal Melbourne Hospital Mark W. Ashton, F.R.A.C.S. Jack Brockhoff Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Research Unit University of Melbourne Damien L. Stella, F.R.A.N.Z.C.R. Department of Radiology Royal Melbourne Hospital G. Ian Taylor, F.R.C.S., F.R.A.C.S. Jack Brockhoff Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Research Unit University of Melbourne Parkville, Victoria, Australia DISCLOSURE The authors declare that there is no source of financial or other support, or any financial or professional relationships that may pose a competing interest.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,094
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,232
Écart entre enseignants0,216 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations20
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgeryMême sujetReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesTravaux en français237 207