J Reconstr Microsurg 2011; 27(1): 077-078
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1267838
LETTER TO THE EDITOR

© Thieme Medical Publishers

Response to Letter to the Editor: Preoperative Imaging for Perforator Flaps—More Research Is Necessary

Bernard T. Lee1 , Peter C. Neligan2
  • 1Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 2Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 October 2010 (online)

Preview

We thank Drs. Knobloch, Redeker, and Vogt for their interest in our special topic supplement issue, “Imaging Modalities in Perforator Flap Reconstruction.” It was our hope to stimulate a dialogue over best practices in reconstructive perforator flap surgery.

Although preoperative visualization of perforators may lead to many benefits, there are no adequate studies to date that can demonstrate the ideal technique. In fact, by showing the multitude of available techniques (handheld Doppler,[1] duplex ultrasound,[2] multidetector computed tomography,[2] [3] [4] magnetic resonance imaging,[5] [6] [7] near infrared imaging,[8] no imaging[9]), it becomes clear that there is no gold standard. As with many areas within plastic surgery, evidence-based medicine is difficult to design well, and we welcome any contributions to the literature from the authors.

The commentary on the use of Doppler ultrasound is insightful and deserves more attention. To date, we know of no studies within plastic surgery that show three- and four-dimensional ultrasound for vessel identification. We are aware of advances made within obstetric scanning; however, this technology has not been applied to our field. We once again welcome any literature looking specifically at this topic.

The current practice of perforator imaging in Germany is extremely interesting, and we thank the authors for highlighting this viewpoint in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.[10] It seems from the text that a majority of plastic surgeons (90.4%) use some form of imaging in Germany, with duplex ultrasound and color Doppler representing the majority. It would be helpful to see a study further elucidating these results and a full representation of the data gathered. For example, it would be interesting to see why these centers adapted similar practices. On a larger scale, it would be informative to understand what the pattern of usage is in the United States.

The potential quality improvements have not been properly studied as of yet. We are of similar opinion that the learning curve seen in novice surgeons may benefit from preoperative imaging, and early studies are showing benefits of reduced operative time. Large-scale cost-benefit analyses are necessary to ascertain true cost savings. In this era of cost cutting and rationing of health care, however, it can be difficult to justify the additional expense of an imaging study. Anecdotally, we have found it difficult with some insurance plans to justify the necessity for preoperative imaging, especially because the literature is not clear on the benefits (outcomes or cost). It would be a great contribution to the field if multiple, well-designed studies could validate the benefits of perforator flap imaging.

REFERENCES

Bernard T LeeM.D. 

Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School

110 Francis Street, Suite 5A, Boston, MA 02215

Email: blee3@bidmc.harvard.edu