One Versus Two Veins in Free Anterolateral Thigh Flap Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is considerable debate in the literature as to whether one or two venous anastomoses are optimal in the anterolateral thigh (ALT) free-flap reconstruction. The literature is currently devoid of a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating these procedures. This review will therefore be the first to address this clinical question. In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, two authors (EW and SR) independently searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Case-control, randomised control and observational studies were included. The authors did not include case reports, case series, letters or abstracts. All patients were included regardless of age, co-morbidity status, and the anatomical site of reconstruction. Venous congestion/thrombosis, flap take-back rate due to venous insufficiency, flap loss and operative time were the primary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measures included partial flap loss and haematoma formation. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Review Manager 5.4 data synthesis software was used for the analysis. The authors identified eight observational studies, with a total of 1741 patients reviewed, demonstrating a significantly lower flap take-back rate for a double venous anastomosis and a shorter operative time in the single venous anastomosis group. However, other reported measures, including venous congestion and flap loss, showed a non-significant difference (P>0.05). The limitations of the evidence included in this review were that all studies were observational in design. The flap take-back rate is significantly less when anastomosing two veins, and the authors recommend that utilising a second vein can circumvent the caveat of venous compromise.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".