Abstract
Background
Within the field of plastic surgery, free tissue transfer is common practice for knee and lower leg defects. Usually, after such free flap reconstruction, patients undergo a dangling protocol in the postoperative phase. A dangling protocol is designed to gradually subject the free flap to increased venous pressure resulting from gravitational forces. Worldwide there are multiple variations of dangling protocols. However, there is no evidence available in the literature that supports the use of a dangling protocol.
Methods
This is a multicenter randomized controlled trial that includes patients with a free flap lower leg reconstruction. The primary outcome is to assess whether a no-dangling protocol is not inferior to a dangling protocol, in terms of proportion of partial flap loss, 6 months after surgery. Secondary objectives are to identify differences in major and minor complications, length of stay, and costs, and to objectify blood gaseous changes during dangling. Furthermore, at 2 years we will assess difference in physical function, infection rates, and osseous union rates.
Discussion
The primary outcome of this study will give a more decisive answer to the question of whether a dangling protocol is necessary after a free flap reconstruction of the lower leg. The secondary outcomes of this study will provide a better insight into the physical functions, infection rates, and union rates in these patients.
Trial registration
Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (CCMO), NL63146.041.17. Registered on 11 July 2018. Netherlands Trial Register, NTR7545. Registered on 10 October 2018.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Teunis, Teun 1 ; Schellekens, Pascal P. A. 1 ; Mureau, Marc A. M. 2 ; Luijsterburg, Antonius J. M. 2 ; Tempelman, Tallechien M. T. 3 ; van der Beek, Eva S. J. 3 ; Maarse, Wiesje 1 ; Coert, J. Henk 1 1 University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Utrecht, the Netherlands (GRID:grid.7692.a) (ISNI:0000000090126352)
2 Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (GRID:grid.5645.2) (ISNI:000000040459992X)
3 University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Groningen, the Netherlands (GRID:grid.4494.d) (ISNI:0000 0000 9558 4598)




