title: Deciphering the Sensitivity and Specificity of the Implantable Doppler Probe in Free Flap Monitoring.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The efficacy of implantable Doppler probes remains an area of considerable debate. This study aims to decipher its sensitivity and specificity for free flap monitoring.
  
  
  METHODS
  A retrospective review of all free flaps with an implantable Doppler probe was performed between 2000 and 2012.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A Cook-Swartz implantable Doppler probe was used in 439 patients (head and neck, n = 364; breast, n = 53; extremity, n = 22), and demonstrated equivalent sensitivity and specificity between flap types. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 77.8 percent and 88.4 percent, respectively. The artery was monitored in 267 patients, compared to venous monitoring in 101 patients, and in 71 patients both the artery and vein were monitored. Arterial monitoring had significantly greater specificity than venous monitoring, (94.2 percent versus 74.0 percent; p < 0.001), but no benefit was found in monitoring both the artery and the vein. Venous monitoring was significantly associated with reoperation (OR, 3.17; 95 percent CI, 1.70 to 5.91; p = 0.0003). There were 284 flaps that had a monitoring segment in addition to the implantable Doppler probe that significantly increased overall specificity for microvascular complications (OR, 17.71; 95 percent CI, 3.39 to 92.23; p = 0.0006). The specificity (90.5 percent versus 84.8 percent) and sensitivity (80.0 percent versus 66.7 percent) were significantly higher for clinically monitored flaps. The take-back rate was 13.0 percent, with positive findings in 59.6 percent, and 5.2 percent total flap loss.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The use of implantable Doppler probes has high sensitivity and specificity for buried free flaps despite positive findings in less than 60 percent of take-backs. Monitoring the artery is recommended, but clinical examination remains the gold standard for flap monitoring.
  
  
  METHODS
  Diagnostic, IV.
authors.affiliation: Houston, Texas From the Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.
authors.forename: Edward I
authors.initials: EI
authors.lastname: Chang
authors.forename: Amir
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Ibrahim
authors.forename: Hong
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Zhang
authors.forename: Jun
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Liu
authors.forename: Alexander T
authors.initials: AT
authors.lastname: Nguyen
authors.forename: Gregory P
authors.initials: GP
authors.lastname: Reece
authors.forename: Peirong
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Yu
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D015331:Cohort Studies; D005260:Female; D058752:Free Tissue Flaps / Q000098:blood supply* / Q000637:transplantation; D006084:Graft Rejection; D006085:Graft Survival; D006801:Humans; D016015:Logistic Models; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D008991:Monitoring, Physiologic / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D015999:Multivariate Analysis; D019736:Prostheses and Implants; D019651:Plastic Surgery Procedures / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D012039:Regional Blood Flow / Q000502:physiology; D012086:Reoperation; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D018608:Ultrasonography, Doppler / Q000295:instrumentation*