The Utility of Smartphone-Based Thermal Imaging in the Management and Monitoring of Microvascular Flap Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND

Smartphone-based thermal imaging (SBTI) has been reported in the literature to be an easy-to-use, contactless, cost-friendly alternative to standard imaging modalities in identifying flap perforators, monitoring flap perfusion, and detecting flap failure. Our systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate SBTI's accuracy in perforator identification and secondarily evaluate SBTI's utility in flap perfusion monitoring as well as ability to predict flap compromise, failure, and survival.

METHODS

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, a systematic review was performed using PubMed from inception to 2021. Articles were uploaded into Covidence and, following duplicate deletion, were initially screened for use of SBTI in flap procedures through title and abstract screening followed by full-text review. The following data points, if provided, were extracted from each included study: study design, number of patients, patient demographics, perforator number and location, flap number and location, room temperature, cooling method, imaging distance, time from cloth removal, primary (SBTI's accuracy in perforator identification), and secondary outcomes (prediction of flap compromise/failure/survival and cost analysis). Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan v.5.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 153 articles. Eleven applicable studies with a total of 430 flaps from 416 patients were ultimately included. The SBTI device assessed in all included studies was FLIR ONE. Four studies assessed the SBTI's perforated detection ability and were included in meta-analysis. Smartphone-based thermal imaging correctly identified 378 (93.3%; n = 405) perforators, and computed tomography angiography (CTA) correctly identified 402 (99.2%; n = 402), although in one study SBTI found additional perforators not detected on CTA. A random-effects model was used (I2 = 65%), and no significant difference in perforator detection ability was found between SBTI and CTA (P = 0.27).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis supports SBTI as user- and cost-friendly ($229.99), contactless imaging modality with perforator detection ability comparable to current criterion-standard CTA. Postoperatively, SBTI outperformed Doppler ultrasound in early detection of microvascular changes causing flap compromise, allowing for prompt tissue salvage. With a minimal learning curve, SBTI seems to be a promising method of postoperative flap perfusion monitoring able to be used by all hospital ranks. Smartphone-based thermal imaging could thus increase flap monitoring frequency and lower complication rates, although further study is warranted.