Effect of intraoperative dopamine on free flap survival in a rat model: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The classic teaching is that free flaps have unique postsurgical transfer physiology that renders them highly sensitive to vasoactive drugs owing to the complete denervation of the tissue. There are no basic or animal studies on this phenomenon, and expert opinion is against the use of vasoactive substances in free flap surgeries. It has been our general impression that judicial use of ionotropes to support perfusion does not affect free flap survival. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect on free flap survival of the intraoperative use of dopamine in a free flap rat model. METHODS: A microvascular free flap model was used by raising a fasciocutaneous flap based on the epigastric artery and vein in the adult Sprague-Dawley rat. Fifty-six rats were randomized to receive two intraoperative boluses of either saline or high-dose dopamine. Each free flap was assessed for skin necrosis, capillary refill, and vessel thrombosis at 48 hours postprocedure. Data for each group were collected in a double-blinded fashion. RESULTS: There was no difference (p = .2) in free flap survival when comparing the saline group (38%) to the dopamine group (50%). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that high-dose intraoperative boluses of dopamine had no effect on early free flap survival in a rat model. This is the first study to examine the use of intraoperative vasoactive medications in a free flap model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".