Kushida-Contreras, Beatriz Hatsue

AbstractBackground Studies reporting on the deep circumflex iliac artery (DCIA) free flap are restricted to a limited number of patients and areas of application. The aim of this review was to assess the reliability and versatility of the DCIA free flap during reconstruction.Methods A comprehensive review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines using PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and SCOPUS. A critical analysis of pooled data was performed to assess outcomes employing the DCIA free flap.Results A total of 445 DCIA free flaps were included. The main recipient sites were head and neck (72.35%), lower extremity (20.67%), and upper extremity (6.74%). The main indications for reconstruction were tumor resection (73.8%) and trauma (17.43%). Fifty non-DCIA flaps were required to finalize the reconstruction of several defects. The pooled flap failure rate using the DCIA free flap was 4% (95% confidence interval: 1–8%). No significant heterogeneity was present across studies (Q statistic 22.12, p = 0.14; I 2 = 27.68%, p = 0.139). Complication rates for head and neck and limb reconstruction were 57.37 and 40.16%, respectively. The average length and surface area of bone flaps were 7.79 cm and 22.8 cm2, respectively. The area of the skin paddles was 117 cm2.Conclusion The DCIA free flap has shown to be a versatile reconstructive alternative for head and neck and short-medium size limb defects. However, the complexity of functions, the recipient site location, and a potential large defect can detract from the use of the DCIA free flap as an initial reconstructive option for head and neck and extensive limb defects.

Purpose : There is an unknown percentage of transgender and gender non-confirming individuals who undergo gender affirmation surgeries (GAS) that experiences regret. Regret could lead to physical and mental morbidity, also questioning the appropriateness of these procedures in selected patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate the prevalence of regret in transgender individuals who underwent GAS and evaluate associated factors. Methods : A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive research strategy was performed including the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, and Daily, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. Random-effects meta-analysis of proportions, subgroup analysis, meta-regression, publication bias, and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: A total of 27 studies, pooling 7,928 transgender patients that underwent any type of GAS were included in this review. The pooled prevalence of regret after GAS was 1% (95% Confidence interval [CI] <1-2%). Overall, 33% underwent transmasculine surgical procedures and 67% transfeminine procedures. The prevalence of regrets among patients undergoing transmasculine and transfeminine surgeries was <1% (IC<1-<1%) and 1% (CI<1-2%), respectively. A total of 77 patients regretted having had GAS. Of them, 28 had minor and 34 had major regrets based on Pfäfflin’s regret classification. The majority of these had “clear regret” based on Kuiper and Cohen Kettenis’ classification. Conclusion: Based on this review, there is an extremely low prevalence of regret in transgender patients after GAS. We believe this study corroborates the improvements made in regard to selection criteria for GAS. However, there is high subjectivity in the assessment of regret and lack of standardized questionnaires, which highlight the importance of developing validated questionnaires in this population.