The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Intraoperative Perfusion Techniques Can Accurately Predict Mastectomy Skin Flap Necrosis in Breast Reconstruction: Results of a Prospective Trial
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative vascular imaging can assist assessment of mastectomy skin flap perfusion to predict areas of necrosis. No head-to-head study has compared modalities such as laser-assisted indocyanine green dye angiography and fluorescein dye angiography with clinical assessment. METHODS: The authors conducted a prospective clinical trial of tissue expander-implant breast reconstruction with intraoperative evaluation of mastectomy skin flaps by clinical assessment, laser-assisted indocyanine green dye angiography, and fluorescein dye angiography. Intraoperatively predicted regions of necrosis were photographically documented, and clinical assessment guided excision. Postoperative necrosis was directly compared with each prediction. The primary outcome was all-inclusive skin necrosis. RESULTS: Fifty-one tissue expander-implant breast reconstructions (32 patients) were completed, with 21 cases of all-inclusive necrosis (41.2 percent). Laser-assisted indocyanine green dye angiography and fluorescein dye angiography correctly predicted necrosis in 19 of 21 of cases where clinical judgment had failed. Only six of 21 cases were full-thickness necrosis, and five of 21 required an intervention (9.8 percent). Risk factors such as smoking, obesity, and breast weight greater than 1000 g were statistically significant. Laser-assisted indocyanine green dye angiography and fluorescein dye angiography overpredicted areas of necrosis by 72 percent and 88 percent (p = 0.002). Quantitative analysis for laser-assisted indocyanine green dye angiography in necrotic regions showed absolute perfusion units less than 3.7, with 90 percent sensitivity and 100 percent specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Laser-assisted indocyanine green dye angiography is a better predictor of mastectomy skin flap necrosis than fluorescein dye angiography and clinical judgment. Both methods overpredict without quantitative analysis. Laser-assisted indocyanine green dye angiography is more specific and correlates better with the criterion standard diagnosis of necrosis. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, I.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Gurtner, G. C., Jones, G. E., Neligan, P. C., Newman, M. I., Phillips, B. T., Sacks, J. M., & Zenn, M. R. (2013) · Annals of Surgical Innovation and Research · doi:10.1186/1750-1164-7-1 · Cited by 256
Self-citationTheocharidis, V., Katsaros, I., Sgouromallis, E., Serifis, N., Boikou, V., Tasigiorgos, S., Kokosis, G., & Economopoulos, K. P. (2018) · Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2018.01.011 · Cited by 72
Metadata
- Authors
- Phillips, B. T., Lanier, S. T., Conkling, N., Wang, E. D., Dagum, A. B., Ganz, J. C., Khan, S. U., & Bui, D. T.
- Venue
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
- Published
- 2012-05
- Volume
- 129
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 778e-788e
- ISSN
- 0032-1052 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2041572042
- Cited by
- 324
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Intraoperative Perfusion Techniques Can Accurately Predict Mastectomy Skin Flap Necrosis in Breast Reconstruction: Results of a Prospective Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/prs.0b013e31824a2ae8
- The paper
- Phillips, B. T., Lanier, S. T., Conkling, N., Wang, E. D., Dagum, A. B., Ganz, J. C., Khan, S. U., & Bui, D. T. (2012). Intraoperative Perfusion Techniques Can Accurately Predict Mastectomy Skin Flap Necrosis in Breast Reconstruction: Results of a Prospective Trial. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e31824a2ae8
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.