DIY Flap Monitoring: The Glucose Index

Background:. Flap loss is reduced by monitoring, which detects vascular compromise. Glucose levels vary in suffering flaps; therefore, we aimed to show that monitoring flaps with glucose pinprick test is a cheap, reliable, ubiquitous, and easy method. Methods:. We reviewed a prospectively kept datab...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: M.C. Pérez Colman, MD, C.F. Schauvinhold, MD, J.M. Chavanne, MD, G.F. Errea, MD, M. Bou, MD, G. Ernst, PhD
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer 2023-09-01
Series:Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open
Online Access:http://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/10.1097/GOX.0000000000005289
_version_ 1797375064001216512
author M.C. Pérez Colman, MD
C.F. Schauvinhold, MD
J.M. Chavanne, MD
G.F. Errea, MD
M. Bou, MD
G. Ernst, PhD
author_facet M.C. Pérez Colman, MD
C.F. Schauvinhold, MD
J.M. Chavanne, MD
G.F. Errea, MD
M. Bou, MD
G. Ernst, PhD
author_sort M.C. Pérez Colman, MD
collection DOAJ
description Background:. Flap loss is reduced by monitoring, which detects vascular compromise. Glucose levels vary in suffering flaps; therefore, we aimed to show that monitoring flaps with glucose pinprick test is a cheap, reliable, ubiquitous, and easy method. Methods:. We reviewed a prospectively kept database. A pinprick test was performed to measure systemic and flap glucose levels. A glucose index (GI; flap glucose/systemic glucose) was calculated. Comparison between the groups (with occlusive event, and without occlusive event) was done. Results:. In total, 32 flaps in 29 consecutive patients were included. Eleven (34%) were free flaps. Of these, one (9%) was explored twice. Initially, salvage was achieved. However, 36 hours later, a second exploration was needed but was unsuccessful. Of the 21 pedicled flaps (66%), one (5%) needed exploration (suture release), and three (14%) had partial losses that were not clinically relevant. On the ROC curve, we found a cut-off value for a GI of 0.49 or less with a sensitivity of 95% [95% confidence interval (CI): 75.1 to 99.9%] and a specificity of 100% (95% CI: 98.5 to 100%), with a positive predictive value of 100% (95% CI: 81.5 to 100%) and a negative predictive value of 99.6% (95% CI: 97.8 to 100%) for flap suffering. Conclusions:. The GI, as a complement, assists in defining treatment approach. It is an easy, reliable, accessible method that can be performed by nonmedical personnel. Its main drawback is the inability to monitor buried or hard to reach flaps.
first_indexed 2024-03-08T19:16:49Z
format Article
id doaj.art-b6c9988aceb24992b99b699760504a2a
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2169-7574
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-08T19:16:49Z
publishDate 2023-09-01
publisher Wolters Kluwer
record_format Article
series Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open
spelling doaj.art-b6c9988aceb24992b99b699760504a2a2023-12-27T06:49:45ZengWolters KluwerPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open2169-75742023-09-01119e528910.1097/GOX.0000000000005289202309000-00058DIY Flap Monitoring: The Glucose IndexM.C. Pérez Colman, MD0C.F. Schauvinhold, MD1J.M. Chavanne, MD2G.F. Errea, MD3M. Bou, MD4G. Ernst, PhD5From the * Hospital Universitario Austral, Pilar, ArgentinaFrom the * Hospital Universitario Austral, Pilar, ArgentinaFrom the * Hospital Universitario Austral, Pilar, Argentina† Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina‡ Hospital de Clínicas “José de San Martín,” Buenos Aires, Argentina.† Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, ArgentinaBackground:. Flap loss is reduced by monitoring, which detects vascular compromise. Glucose levels vary in suffering flaps; therefore, we aimed to show that monitoring flaps with glucose pinprick test is a cheap, reliable, ubiquitous, and easy method. Methods:. We reviewed a prospectively kept database. A pinprick test was performed to measure systemic and flap glucose levels. A glucose index (GI; flap glucose/systemic glucose) was calculated. Comparison between the groups (with occlusive event, and without occlusive event) was done. Results:. In total, 32 flaps in 29 consecutive patients were included. Eleven (34%) were free flaps. Of these, one (9%) was explored twice. Initially, salvage was achieved. However, 36 hours later, a second exploration was needed but was unsuccessful. Of the 21 pedicled flaps (66%), one (5%) needed exploration (suture release), and three (14%) had partial losses that were not clinically relevant. On the ROC curve, we found a cut-off value for a GI of 0.49 or less with a sensitivity of 95% [95% confidence interval (CI): 75.1 to 99.9%] and a specificity of 100% (95% CI: 98.5 to 100%), with a positive predictive value of 100% (95% CI: 81.5 to 100%) and a negative predictive value of 99.6% (95% CI: 97.8 to 100%) for flap suffering. Conclusions:. The GI, as a complement, assists in defining treatment approach. It is an easy, reliable, accessible method that can be performed by nonmedical personnel. Its main drawback is the inability to monitor buried or hard to reach flaps.http://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/10.1097/GOX.0000000000005289
spellingShingle M.C. Pérez Colman, MD
C.F. Schauvinhold, MD
J.M. Chavanne, MD
G.F. Errea, MD
M. Bou, MD
G. Ernst, PhD
DIY Flap Monitoring: The Glucose Index
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open
title DIY Flap Monitoring: The Glucose Index
title_full DIY Flap Monitoring: The Glucose Index
title_fullStr DIY Flap Monitoring: The Glucose Index
title_full_unstemmed DIY Flap Monitoring: The Glucose Index
title_short DIY Flap Monitoring: The Glucose Index
title_sort diy flap monitoring the glucose index
url http://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/10.1097/GOX.0000000000005289
work_keys_str_mv AT mcperezcolmanmd diyflapmonitoringtheglucoseindex
AT cfschauvinholdmd diyflapmonitoringtheglucoseindex
AT jmchavannemd diyflapmonitoringtheglucoseindex
AT gferreamd diyflapmonitoringtheglucoseindex
AT mboumd diyflapmonitoringtheglucoseindex
AT gernstphd diyflapmonitoringtheglucoseindex