Systematic Review of Supraclavicular Artery Island Flap vs Free Flap in Head and Neck Reconstruction

Daniel C. Sukato, Alisa Timashpolsky, George Ferzli, Richard M. Rosenfeld, Eli Gordin

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to compare the surgical outcomes of supraclavicular artery island flap (SCAIF) and free tissue transfer (FTT) in head and neck reconstruction. Data Sources: PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases. Review Methods: Independent screening and data extraction were performed by 2 authors. Only studies that directly compared SCAIF and FTT were included. Data were pooled with random-effects meta-analysis to determine the standardized mean differences (SMDs), risk differences, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistics. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies tool was used to evaluate extent of bias in studies. Results: The initial query yielded 661 results, of which 4 comparative studies remained for final analysis. The pooled sample sizes for the SCAIF and FTT cohorts were 100 and 84, respectively. SCAIF was associated with reduction of operative time by a large effect size (SMD, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-2.52). The harvested flap areas and perioperative complications, including rates of total flap loss, partial flap necrosis, and recipient/donor site dehiscences, were comparable between the 2 procedures with low to high heterogeneity among studies. Conclusion: SCAIF requires less operative time and has comparable short-term perioperative results to FTT. The findings of this study support the viability of SCAIF as an alternative to FTT and provide evidence for its inclusion in the reconstructive armamentarium of major head and neck ablation and trauma.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)215-222
Number of pages8
JournalOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)
Volume160
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2019

Fingerprint

Surgical Flaps
Free Tissue Flaps
Neck
Arteries
Head
Operative Time
Confidence Intervals
Information Storage and Retrieval
PubMed
Sample Size
Meta-Analysis
Necrosis
Databases
Wounds and Injuries

Keywords

  • free flap
  • free tissue transfer
  • head and neck reconstruction
  • meta-analysis
  • regional pedicled flap
  • supraclavicular artery island flap
  • systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Systematic Review of Supraclavicular Artery Island Flap vs Free Flap in Head and Neck Reconstruction. / Sukato, Daniel C.; Timashpolsky, Alisa; Ferzli, George; Rosenfeld, Richard M.; Gordin, Eli.

In: Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States), Vol. 160, No. 2, 01.02.2019, p. 215-222.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Sukato, Daniel C. ; Timashpolsky, Alisa ; Ferzli, George ; Rosenfeld, Richard M. ; Gordin, Eli. / Systematic Review of Supraclavicular Artery Island Flap vs Free Flap in Head and Neck Reconstruction. In: Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States). 2019 ; Vol. 160, No. 2. pp. 215-222.
@article{1d988eb4e06947b0b7f4666cf548715a,
title = "Systematic Review of Supraclavicular Artery Island Flap vs Free Flap in Head and Neck Reconstruction",
abstract = "Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to compare the surgical outcomes of supraclavicular artery island flap (SCAIF) and free tissue transfer (FTT) in head and neck reconstruction. Data Sources: PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases. Review Methods: Independent screening and data extraction were performed by 2 authors. Only studies that directly compared SCAIF and FTT were included. Data were pooled with random-effects meta-analysis to determine the standardized mean differences (SMDs), risk differences, and 95{\%} confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistics. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies tool was used to evaluate extent of bias in studies. Results: The initial query yielded 661 results, of which 4 comparative studies remained for final analysis. The pooled sample sizes for the SCAIF and FTT cohorts were 100 and 84, respectively. SCAIF was associated with reduction of operative time by a large effect size (SMD, 1.65; 95{\%} confidence interval, 0.78-2.52). The harvested flap areas and perioperative complications, including rates of total flap loss, partial flap necrosis, and recipient/donor site dehiscences, were comparable between the 2 procedures with low to high heterogeneity among studies. Conclusion: SCAIF requires less operative time and has comparable short-term perioperative results to FTT. The findings of this study support the viability of SCAIF as an alternative to FTT and provide evidence for its inclusion in the reconstructive armamentarium of major head and neck ablation and trauma.",
keywords = "free flap, free tissue transfer, head and neck reconstruction, meta-analysis, regional pedicled flap, supraclavicular artery island flap, systematic review",
author = "Sukato, {Daniel C.} and Alisa Timashpolsky and George Ferzli and Rosenfeld, {Richard M.} and Eli Gordin",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0194599818803603",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "160",
pages = "215--222",
journal = "Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)",
issn = "0194-5998",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Systematic Review of Supraclavicular Artery Island Flap vs Free Flap in Head and Neck Reconstruction

AU - Sukato, Daniel C.

AU - Timashpolsky, Alisa

AU - Ferzli, George

AU - Rosenfeld, Richard M.

AU - Gordin, Eli

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to compare the surgical outcomes of supraclavicular artery island flap (SCAIF) and free tissue transfer (FTT) in head and neck reconstruction. Data Sources: PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases. Review Methods: Independent screening and data extraction were performed by 2 authors. Only studies that directly compared SCAIF and FTT were included. Data were pooled with random-effects meta-analysis to determine the standardized mean differences (SMDs), risk differences, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistics. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies tool was used to evaluate extent of bias in studies. Results: The initial query yielded 661 results, of which 4 comparative studies remained for final analysis. The pooled sample sizes for the SCAIF and FTT cohorts were 100 and 84, respectively. SCAIF was associated with reduction of operative time by a large effect size (SMD, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-2.52). The harvested flap areas and perioperative complications, including rates of total flap loss, partial flap necrosis, and recipient/donor site dehiscences, were comparable between the 2 procedures with low to high heterogeneity among studies. Conclusion: SCAIF requires less operative time and has comparable short-term perioperative results to FTT. The findings of this study support the viability of SCAIF as an alternative to FTT and provide evidence for its inclusion in the reconstructive armamentarium of major head and neck ablation and trauma.

AB - Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to compare the surgical outcomes of supraclavicular artery island flap (SCAIF) and free tissue transfer (FTT) in head and neck reconstruction. Data Sources: PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases. Review Methods: Independent screening and data extraction were performed by 2 authors. Only studies that directly compared SCAIF and FTT were included. Data were pooled with random-effects meta-analysis to determine the standardized mean differences (SMDs), risk differences, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistics. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies tool was used to evaluate extent of bias in studies. Results: The initial query yielded 661 results, of which 4 comparative studies remained for final analysis. The pooled sample sizes for the SCAIF and FTT cohorts were 100 and 84, respectively. SCAIF was associated with reduction of operative time by a large effect size (SMD, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-2.52). The harvested flap areas and perioperative complications, including rates of total flap loss, partial flap necrosis, and recipient/donor site dehiscences, were comparable between the 2 procedures with low to high heterogeneity among studies. Conclusion: SCAIF requires less operative time and has comparable short-term perioperative results to FTT. The findings of this study support the viability of SCAIF as an alternative to FTT and provide evidence for its inclusion in the reconstructive armamentarium of major head and neck ablation and trauma.

KW - free flap

KW - free tissue transfer

KW - head and neck reconstruction

KW - meta-analysis

KW - regional pedicled flap

KW - supraclavicular artery island flap

KW - systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061214521&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061214521&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0194599818803603

DO - 10.1177/0194599818803603

M3 - Review article

C2 - 30296901

AN - SCOPUS:85061214521

VL - 160

SP - 215

EP - 222

JO - Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)

JF - Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)

SN - 0194-5998

IS - 2

ER -