Patients’ experience of the monitoring of free flaps after reconstruction for oral cancer

Regular monitoring of free flaps is essential after microvascular free tissue transfer, but the frequency and duration of the observations vary between units and there is no consensus nationally. Best practice can be informed by the feedback of patients, but as we know of no such studies, we did a c...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery 2017-12, Vol.55 (10), p.1008-1012
Main Authors: Nazir, H., Lowe, D., Rogers, S.N.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aged
Cross-Sectional Studies
Dentistry
Female
flap monitoring
free flap surgery
Free Tissue Flaps
free tissue transfer
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Monitoring, Physiologic
Mouth Neoplasms - surgery
oral cancer
Patient Preference
Quality of life
Reconstructive Surgical Procedures - methods
Self Report
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Regular monitoring of free flaps is essential after microvascular free tissue transfer, but the frequency and duration of the observations vary between units and there is no consensus nationally. Best practice can be informed by the feedback of patients, but as we know of no such studies, we did a cross-sectional survey of a consecutive group of patients after free tissue transfer to find out what they thought about monitoring. We designed a study-specific questionnaire after consultation with the patient and carer forum, and sent it to 150 patients who had had free tissue transfer in the maxillofacial department at Aintree University Hospital during 2015 and 2016. A total of 106 (71%) responded, and a quarter (30/106, 28%) would have liked more information about monitoring. Generally, patients were worried little by the observations (91/106, 86%), but one-third (34/106, 32%) reported disturbed sleep. Just over half (n=55/104, 53%) were relieved when the monitoring changed from hourly to four-hourly, and almost all (99/101, 98%) were not worried by this. Nearly half (47/105, 45%) would have preferred fewer observations when asleep. In conclusion, our findings could help to inform a leaflet for patients about monitoring. Consideration could be given to reducing its frequency, for example, the checks at 1, 3, and 5am could be omitted during the second night, which could make a substantial difference to the patient. However, its impact on salvage needs to be audited.
ISSN:0266-4356
1532-1940
DOI:10.1016/j.bjoms.2017.10.005