Can Loupe magnification be a viable alternative to Operative Microscope magnification for vascular anastomosis in reconstructive surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of vascular anastomosis using loupes magnification versus operative microscope magnification in reconstructive surgery. MethodsWe performed a systematic review of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus and Cochrane Library database according to the PRISMA guidelines. Comparative studies between the two techniques and single arm studies reporting on loupes reconstruction were included. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed. ResultsTwelve studies, reporting a total of 3908 of flaps, 3409 of which were performed under loupes magnification and 499 under the operative microscope magnification were selected for analysis. No statistically significant differences were observed regarding total flap loss and vascular complication between the two arms. In the Loupes group the rate of total flap loss was 2.65% (95% CI: 1.15–4.63) and the rate of vascular complications 4.49% (95% CI: 2.58–6.84). ConclusionLoupes magnification under circumstances can provide a safe and effective alternative to microvascular reconstruction in reconstructive surgery. With respect to flap failure and vascular complication rates, there appear to be no statistically significant differences between the anastomoses conducted under Loupes magnification and the standard operative microscope.