Is there a difference in venous thrombosis rate in free flap anastomoses based on coupler diameter? A systematic review. Does Size Really Matter?

Background

The adage is to use the largest anastomotic coupler device (coupler) size possible, since smaller an anastomosis might be more susceptible to thrombosis. It is unclear if this wisdom is supported by data. This study tests the hypothesis that there is no difference in the reported literature in thrombosis rate between different coupler sizes.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. After screening 235 studies, we included 11 retrospective case-series. According to the criteria of Newcastle–Ottowa Scale, quality score ranged from 2 to 4 (out of 5) and funnel plots indicated publication bias. We included a total of 5930 coupled anastomoses. We calculated thrombosis rate per coupler diameter with exact confidence intervals (CIs). We regard non-overlapping CIs as a significant difference.

Results

Nine studies reported no difference in thrombosis rate based on coupler size. Two studies report a potentially greater thrombosis rates in smaller sizes: (1) 2.0 mm 27% (95% CI 17%–40%, 17/62 cases) vs. 3.0 mm 6.3% (95% CI 2.8%–12%, 8/126 cases) and (2) 1.5 mm 6.9% (95% CI 2.8%–14%, 7/101 cases) vs. 3.0 mm group 1.2% (95% CI 0.64%–2.1%, 13/1079).

Conclusion

There is some evidence that suggests that smaller coupler sizes are associated with greater thrombosis rate, but the current available evidence has limitations. Performing a second anastomosis, in case, the first anastomosis is performed with a coupler size of 1.0, 1.5, or even 2.0 mm, can potentially reduce this rate, however, this remains to be determined.

Assessing the effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in breast cancer patients with late radiation toxicity (HONEY trial): a trial protocol using a trial within a cohort design

Background

Breast cancer treatment with radiotherapy can induce late radiation toxicity, characterized by pain, fibrosis, edema, impaired arm mobility, and poor cosmetic outcome. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has been proposed as treatment for late radiation toxicity; however, high-level evidence of effectiveness is lacking. As HBOT is standard treatment and reimbursed by insurers, performing classic randomized controlled trials is difficult. The “Hyperbaric OxygeN therapy on brEast cancer patients with late radiation toxicity” (HONEY) trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of HBOT on late radiation toxicity in breast cancer patients using the trial within cohorts (TwiCs) design.

Methods

The HONEY trial will be conducted within the Utrecht cohort for Multiple BREast cancer intervention studies and Long-term evaluation (UMBRELLA). Within UMBRELLA, breast cancer patients referred for radiotherapy to the University Medical Centre Utrecht are eligible for inclusion. Patients consent to collection of clinical data and patient-reported outcomes and provide broad consent for randomization into future intervention studies. Patients who meet the HONEY in- and exclusion criteria (participation ≥ 12 months in UMBRELLA, moderate/severe breast or chest wall pain, completed primary breast cancer treatment except hormonal treatment, no prior treatment with HBOT, no contraindications for HBOT, no clinical signs of metastatic or recurrent disease) will be randomized to HBOT or control group on a 2:1 ratio (n = 120). Patients in the control group will not be informed about participation in the trial. Patients in the intervention arm will undergo 30–40 HBOT treatment sessions in a high pressure chamber (2.4 atmospheres absolute) where they inhale 100% oxygen through a mask. Cohort outcome measures (i.e., physical outcomes, quality of life, fatigue, and cosmetic satisfaction) of the HBOT group will be compared to the control group at 3 months follow-up.

Discussion

This pragmatic trial within the UMBELLA cohort was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of HBOT on late radiation toxicity in breast cancer patients using the TwiCs design. Use of the TwiCs design is expected to address issues encountered in classic randomized controlled trials, such as contamination (i.e., HBOT in the control group) and disappointment bias, and generate information about acceptability of HBOT.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT04193722. Registered on 10 December 2019.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-020-04869-z.

Prenatal ultrasound screening for orofacial clefts

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound for detecting prenatal facial clefts in low-risk and high-risk populations.

METHODS

This study prospectively followed up a non-selected population, namely all pregnant women who underwent routine second-trimester prenatal ultrasound screening in the Utrecht region during the 2-year period from January 2007 to December 2008.

RESULTS

A total of 35 924 low-risk and 2836 high-risk pregnant women underwent ultrasound screening. Orofacial clefts were present in 62 cases, an incidence of 1:624. The distribution of clefts was as follows: 18 (29%) cleft lip, 25 (40%) cleft lip with cleft palate, 17 (27%) cleft palate only, one median cleft and one atypical cleft. Of these, 38 (61%) were unilateral and 23 (37%) were bilateral. Thirty-nine per cent (24/62) had associated anomalies, with most chromosomal defects found in the cleft lip with cleft palate and cleft palate only groups. Cleft lip with or without cleft palate was detected prenatally in 38/43 cases, a sensitivity of 88%. No case of cleft palate only was detected prenatally. There were three false-positive cases, of which two were fetuses with multiple congenital deformities.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound screening has a high sensitivity for the detection of cleft lip with and without cleft palate in high-risk and low-risk pregnancies in our region, where well-trained sonographers carry out primary screening. The key to a high sensitivity of prenatal ultrasound is likely to be a combination of excellent training of sonographers, referral to specialized centers when a cleft is suspected, routine visualization of the fetal face and advances in ultrasound techniques.

Diagnostic accuracy of transabdominal ultrasound in detecting prenatal cleft lip and palate: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the diagnostic accuracy of second-trimester transabdominal ultrasound in detecting orofacial clefts in low- and high-risk populations and to compare two-dimensional (2D) with three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound techniques.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for articles published in English, Dutch, French or German using the keywords 'cleft' and 'ultrasound' or 'screening' or 'sonogram' and 'prenatal' or 'antenatal' or 'fetus' to identify cohort studies and randomized trials in order to assess the detection rate by prenatal ultrasound of cleft lip and palate in high-risk and low-risk pregnant women.

RESULTS

Of 451 citations identified, 27 met the criteria for the systematic review, 21 involving unselected low-risk populations and six involving high-risk populations. In the selected studies there was diversity in the gestational age at which the ultrasound examination was performed and there was considerable variety in the diagnostic accuracy of 2D ultrasound in the low-risk women, with prenatal detection rates ranging from 9% to 100% for cleft lip with or without cleft palate, 0% to 22% for cleft palate only and 0% to 73% for all types of cleft. 3D ultrasound in high-risk women resulted in a detection rate of 100% for cleft lip, 86% to 90% for cleft lip with palate and 0% to 89% for cleft palate only.

CONCLUSIONS

2D ultrasound screening for cleft lip and palate in a low-risk population has a relatively low detection rate but is associated with few false-positive results. 3D ultrasound can achieve a reliable diagnosis, but not of cleft palate only.