American Society of Hirudotherapy

Outcomes following head neck free flap reconstruction requiring interposition vein graft or vascular bridge flap

Research article published in Head & neck (2019)

Last Updated: November 1, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Research reportClinical LiteratureDi Taranto et al. · Head & neck, 2019

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Interposition vein grafts (IVG) and vascular bridge flaps (VBF) have been exploited as vascular conduit in challenging head and neck reconstructions. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on 6025 flaps. The effect of patients' characteristics and length of IVG on flap compromise and loss were analyzed. Comparison between IVG and VBF was performed. RESULTS: The flap compromise and loss rates for the overall group were 8.2% and 3.2%, respectively. An IVG was used in 309 free flaps. The average length of the vein grafts was 6.9 ± 4.2 cm. An unplanned return to the operation room occurred in 32 cases (10.4%) and failure of the flap in 12 patients (3.9%). Binary logistic regression found a significant association between flap compromise and loss rates and length of IVG, hypertension, prior radiation, and neck dissection. In the multiple regression model, length of IVG and prior radiation significantly influenced the outcomes. Thirty-nine patients underwent reconstruction with a long IVG (>10 cm). Twenty-six patients underwent surgical reconstruction with radial forearm flap as a VBF. The rate of flap compromise was higher in the group with a long IVG (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: In head and neck free flap reconstruction, the length of IVGs and history of radiotherapy are associated with flap compromise and loss. In case of long distance between the pedicle and the recipient site, the use of a VBF bridge should be considered as a safe alternative.

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

Publication typeJournal Article
Indexed MeSH termsFemaleFree Tissue FlapsGraft SurvivalHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedNeck DissectionRadiotherapyReoperationRetrospective StudiesVeins

Summary

Among 6025 head and neck free flaps, 309 used interposition vein grafts; graft length and prior radiotherapy significantly influenced flap compromise and loss, and vascular bridge flaps are proposed as a safe alternative when long conduits are needed.

Context

This large retrospective review of 6,025 head and neck free flaps analyzed risk factors for flap compromise and loss, finding that longer interposition vein grafts (>10 cm) and prior radiotherapy were significantly associated with poorer outcomes. The authors recommend vascular bridge flaps as a safer alternative for long-distance reconstructions. There is an indirect contextual link: leech therapy is sometimes employed in flap salvage for venous congestion, a complication relevant to the flap compromise outcomes discussed. However, the abstract makes no mention of leeches, hirudotherapy, or medicinal leech use. CAVEAT: No direct leech-related content exists in this abstract; any relevance to leech therapy is speculative and limited to the general surgical context where leech therapy may adjunctively assist flap survival.

Citation

Reference (Vancouver style)

Di Taranto G, Chen SH, Elia R, Sitpahul N, Chan JCY, Losco L, et al. Outcomes following head neck free flap reconstruction requiring interposition vein graft or vascular bridge flap. Head Neck. 2019;41(9):2914-2920. doi:10.1002/hed.25767. PMID: 30968501

Bibliographic details (authors, volume, pages, DOI) are taken from the PubMed record.

Added to ASH library: May 28, 2026 · Site last updated: November 1, 2026

This website provides educational information and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. Medicinal leech therapy carries clinically meaningful risks and should be performed only by qualified clinicians under institutionally approved protocols. FDA 510(k) clearance for medicinal leeches is limited to specific indications; investigational and off-label discussions are labeled accordingly. For patient-specific guidance, consult a qualified healthcare provider.