Venous Thrombosis in Handsewn versus Coupled Venous Anastomoses in 857 Consecutive Breast Free Flaps

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The anastomotic coupling device has demonstrated safety and efficacy; however, the coupler has never been compared directly to handsewn venous anastomoses exclusively in breast reconstruction. We hypothesized that rates of venous thrombosis would be lower using the coupler versus handsewn anastomoses in free flap breast reconstruction.

Methods We performed a retrospective review utilizing clinic records, hospital records, and operative reports for 857 consecutive breast free flaps at a single institution from 1997 to 2012. Data were collected on reconstruction type, recipient vessels, timing, laterality, preoperative radiation, chemotherapy, venous thrombosis, and flap outcome. We compared rates of venous thrombosis between handsewn and coupled anastomoses for breast free flaps. Chi-square test was used to calculate statistical significance.

Results A total of 857 consecutive free flaps were performed for breast reconstruction in 647 patients over 16 years. The venous anastomosis was handsewn in 303 flaps, and the anastomotic coupler was used in 554 flaps. The rate of venous thrombosis requiring anastomotic revision in the handsewn group was 0.04% (12/303), compared with 0.01% in the coupled group (8/554; p = 0.02).

Conclusion The anastomotic coupler was more effective in preventing venous thrombosis than handsewn anastomoses in our series. While our study demonstrates improved patency rates using the venous coupler in breast reconstruction, we were unable to definitively separate this finding from potential confounding variables due to the low rates of thrombosis in both the groups. Our data are consistent with current literature, which suggests that the coupler is a safe and effective alternative to hand sutured anastomoses.

• References

• 1 Nakayama K, Tamiya T, Yamamoto K, Akimoto S. A simple new apparatus for small vessel anastomosisi (free autograft of the sigmoid included). Surgery 1962; 52: 918-931
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Jandali S, Wu LC, Vega SJ, Kovach SJ, Serletti JM. 1000 consecutive venous anastomoses using the microvascular anastomotic coupler in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (3) 792-798
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Grewal AS, Erovic B, Strumas N, Enepekides DJ, Higgins KM. The utility of the microvascular anastomotic coupler in free tissue transfer. Can J Plast Surg 2012; 20 (2) 98-102
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Rozen WM, Whitaker IS, Acosta R. Venous coupler for free-flap anastomosis: outcomes of 1,000 cases. Anticancer Res 2010; 30 (4) 1293-1294
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Yap LH, Constantinides J, Butler CE. Venous thrombosis in coupled versus sutured microvascular anastomoses. Ann Plast Surg 2006; 57 (6) 666-669
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 DeLacure MD, Wong RS, Markowitz BL , et al. Clinical experience with a microvascular anastomotic device in head and neck reconstruction. Am J Surg 1995; 170 (5) 521-523
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Zhang T, Lubek J, Salama A , et al. Venous anastomoses using microvascular coupler in free flap head and neck reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 70 (4) 992-996
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Barker EV, Enepekides DJ. The utility of microvascular anastomotic devices in head and neck reconstruction. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008; 16 (4) 331-334
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Sullivan SK, Dellacroce F, Allen R. Management of significant venous discrepancy with microvascular venous coupler. J Reconstr Microsurg 2003; 19 (6) 377-380
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Bank J, Teng E, Song DH. Microvascular coupler-induced intimal crimping causing venous thrombosis. J Reconstr Microsurg 2015; 31 (2) 157-158
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Fearon JA, Cuadros CL, May Jr JW. Flap failure after microvascular free-tissue transfer: the fate of a second attempt. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990; 86 (4) 746-751
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Tsai TM, Bennett DL, Pederson WC, Matiko J. Complications and vascular salvage of free-tissue transfers to the extremities. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988; 82 (6) 1022-1026
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Sasson HN, Stofman GM, Berman P. Clinical use of the 3M 2.5 mm mechanical microcoupling device in free tissue transfer. Microsurgery 1994; 15 (6) 421-423
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Schubert HM, Schoeller T, Wechselberger G. 1000 consecutive venous anastomoses using the microvascular anastomotic coupler in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126 (5) 1789 , author reply 1789
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 de Bruijn HP, Marck KW. Coupling the venous anastomosis: safe and simple. Microsurgery 1996; 17 (7) 414-416
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Berggren A, Ostrup LT, Ragnarsson R. Clinical experience with the Unilink/3M Precise microvascular anastomotic device. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 1993; 27 (1) 35-39
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Ahn CY, Shaw WW, Berns S, Markowitz BL. Clinical experience with the 3M microvascular coupling anastomotic device in 100 free-tissue transfers. Plast Reconstr Surg 1994; 93 (7) 1481-1484
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Nishimoto S, Hikasa H, Ichino N, Kurita T, Yoshino K. Venous anastomoses with a microvascular anastomotic device in head and neck reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2000; 16 (7) 553-556
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Camara O, Herrmann J, Egbe A, Koch I, Gajda M, Runnebaum IB. Venous coupler for free-flap anastomosis. Anticancer Res 2009; 29 (7) 2827-2830
  PubMedGoogle Scholar