A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@remsenmedia.com&api_key=81853a771c3a3a2c6b2553a65bc33b056f08&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

DIY Flap Monitoring: The Glucose Index. | LitMetric

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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10752491PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000005289DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

glucose levels
8
pinprick test
8
occlusive event
8
100% 95%
8
glucose
6
flaps
6
100%
5
diy flap
4
flap monitoring
4
monitoring glucose
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!