Американское общество гирудотерапии

The efficacy of arterial only microsurgical nasal replantation: a systematic review

Systematic review published in ANZ J Surg (2024)

Последнее обновление: June 18, 2026Рецензент: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Systematic reviewКлинические исследованияБезопасность и инфекционный контрольSecanho MS et al. · ANZ journal of surgery, 2024

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Microsurgical nasal replantation is a rare yet important procedure in order to regain the respiratory, olfactory, and aesthetic features of the nose. However, due to the traumatic nature of most nasal amputations, appropriate veins for anastomosis are difficult to find- complicating replantation. This is the first systematic review that compares peri operative and post-operative outcomes in arterial only versus arterial and venous anastomosis for nasal replantation. METHODS: A comprehensive search of Medline, SCOPUS, and Embase databases up to 30th November 2023 was undertaken. Inclusion criteria included studies reporting on nasal replantation. Reports were then split into venous anastomosis and arterial only anastomosis and compared against one another. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Reports tool was used for bias assessment. Comparative analysis was undertaken using Microsoft Excel software utilizing chi squared tests and t-tests where necessary. RESULTS: A total of 27 papers with a sample size of 29 were found. Risk of bias for the included studies was generally low. Demographics between the two groups were similar. Arterial only anastomosis was on average 2 h and 32 min faster. Arterial only anastomosis utilized Hirudotherapy (medicinal leeching) more often than venous anastomosis (P = 0.01) whereas venous anastomosis used heparin more frequently (P = 0.01). Otherwise, complications, tissue preservation, hospital stay and follow up outcomes were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The evidence to date suggests that arterial only anastomosis is a safe and viable method for nasal replantation.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleSystematic Review
Indexed MeSH termsHumansAmputation, TraumaticAnastomosis, SurgicalArteriesLeechingMicrosurgeryNoseReplantationTreatment OutcomeVeins

Резюме

Systematic review of 27 papers (29 patients) comparing arterial-only versus arterial-plus-venous anastomosis in microsurgical nasal replantation. Arterial-only anastomosis used hirudotherapy significantly more often (p=0.01) than venous anastomosis.

Почему это важно для гирудотерапии

This systematic review compares perioperative and postoperative outcomes in arterial-only versus arterial-and-venous anastomosis for microsurgical nasal replantation across 27 papers with 29 total cases, finding that arterial-only anastomosis was on average 2 hours 32 minutes faster and used hirudotherapy (medicinal leeching) more often than venous anastomosis (P=0.01), while venous anastomosis used heparin more frequently (P=0.01), with otherwise similar complications, tissue preservation, hospital stay, and follow-up outcomes. The review concludes that arterial-only anastomosis is a safe and viable method for nasal replantation. For ASH's domain, this is relevant as it documents hirudotherapy use in nasal replantation; however, the abstract does not characterize leech therapy as standard, validate its efficacy, or specify its precise clinical role beyond differential usage between groups.

Цитирование

The efficacy of arterial only microsurgical nasal replantation: a systematic review.

Secanho MS et al. · ANZ journal of surgery, 2024

Связанный клинический контекст

Узнайте, как это исследование связано с клинической практикой

Добавлено в библиотеку ASH: May 27, 2026 · Последнее обновление сайта: June 18, 2026

Этот сайт предоставляет образовательную информацию и не является медицинской консультацией, диагнозом или рекомендацией по лечению. Гирудотерапия сопряжена с клинически значимыми рисками и должна проводиться только квалифицированными клиницистами в рамках институционально утверждённых протоколов. Разрешение FDA 510(k) для медицинских пиявок ограничено определёнными показаниями; обсуждения исследовательского и нелицензионного применения отмечены соответствующим образом. Для индивидуальных медицинских рекомендаций обратитесь к квалифицированному медицинскому специалисту.