American Society of Hirudotherapy

Free flap take-back following postoperative microvascular compromise: predicting salvage versus failure

Research article published in Plastic and reconstructive surgery (2012)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Research reportClinical TrialsMirzabeigi et al. · Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2012

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to stratify preoperative risk factors that predict successful free flap salvage and (2) to identify perioperative strategies that correlate with successful salvage. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all free flaps performed from January of 2005 to April of 2011. The time until salvage was defined as the end of the initial procedure until the initiation of the salvage attempt. The primary endpoint, successful salvage, was defined as any flap that did not result in total loss. RESULTS: A total of 2260 free flaps were reviewed, and 47 take-backs for delayed microvascular compromise were identified. Twenty-three of 47 flaps (49 percent) were salvaged. The mean time until take-back, presence of thrombophilia, and preoperative platelet counts were factors predictive of unsuccessful salvage. Preoperative platelet counts above 300 were associated with the lowest rates of salvage. Intraoperative maneuvers were examined, and surgeon experience (defined as >5 years in practice) was the only factor that was significant; however, intraoperative heparin anticoagulation and complete mechanical thrombectomy trended toward significance. The type of thrombolytic agent used was not found to result in a statistically significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to suggest that there may be preoperative factors predictive of flap salvage success, including thrombophilia and routine preoperative platelet values. Shorter time to take-back and surgeon experience may improve salvage, whereas intraoperative heparin anticoagulation and complete mechanical removal of the thrombus demonstrate preliminary evidence as effective intraoperative strategies.

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

Publication typeJournal Article
Indexed MeSH termsFree Tissue FlapsHumansMicrovesselsMiddle AgedMonitoring, IntraoperativePlatelet CountPostoperative ComplicationsPreoperative CareReoperationRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSalvage Therapy

Summary

Peer-reviewed clinical and outcomes research relevant to medicinal leech therapy and its biology. Indexed in PubMed and verified against the NCBI record.

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

This retrospective review of 2,260 free flaps identified 47 take-backs for delayed microvascular compromise, of which 23 (49 percent) were salvaged, and found that longer time to take-back, thrombophilia, and higher preoperative platelet counts predicted failure, while shorter time to re-exploration and greater surgeon experience favored salvage; intraoperative heparin and complete thrombectomy showed only trend-level association. For ASH this maps onto the clinical territory where leeches are used: venous compromise of free flaps, where decongestion buys time for the microvasculature. The abstract does not mention leech therapy and focuses on surgical and pharmacologic anticoagulation rather than hirudotherapy, so it frames the salvage problem leeches address without speaking to leeches themselves. As a single-institution retrospective study its predictors are associations, not proven causes, and the salvage rate reflects this center's case mix.

Citation

Free flap take-back following postoperative microvascular compromise: predicting salvage versus failure.

Mirzabeigi et al. · Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2012

Added to ASH library: May 28, 2026 · Site last updated: June 18, 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.