Skip to main content

The Effects of Remote Ischemic Preconditioning on the Inflammatory Cytokine Response to Free Flap Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

In brief

Remote ischemic preconditioning does not reduce inflammatory cytokine surge after head-neck free flap

In a single-center randomized trial of 60 patients, four cycles of upper-limb tourniquet preconditioning failed to lower postoperative levels of key pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, IL-12p70, IFN-γ) compared with sham. The finding suggests RIPC offers no cytokine-mediated protection in this setting, leaving its role in flap preservation uncertain.

Journal
Microsurgery (Q1)
Published
1 September 2026
Study design
Randomized controlled trial
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
Authors
Kumanan Rune Nanthan, Julie Brogaard Larsen, Christine Lodberg Hvas, Birgitte Jul Kiil, Andreas Engel Krag
PMID
42536026
DOI
10.1002/micr.70276

Why clinicians should know about it

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Ischemia-reperfusion injury due to vascular pedicle occlusion is one of the most common causes of free flap failure in head and neck cancer reconstruction. Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) has been proposed as an experimental, non-invasive intervention to attenuate flap ischemia-reperfusion injury; however, the tissue-protective mechanisms remain unclear. RIPC may have multiple effects on the inflammatory system, which plays a central part in the pathophysiology of ischemia-reperfusion injury. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of RIPC on inflammatory cytokine plasma levels during free flap reconstruction. METHODS: Head and neck cancer patients (n = 60) undergoing tumor resection and subsequent free flap reconstruction between August 2015 and November 2017 at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark were randomized 1:1 to RIPC or sham intervention in a single-center, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial (RCT) (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02548377). The study was approved by The Central Denmark Region Committees on Health Research Ethics (journal no. 1-10-72-140-15) and reported following the CONSORT guidelines. RIPC was administered intraoperatively as four 5-min cycles of upper extremity occlusion and reperfusion with an inflatable tourniquet. Blood samples were collected before surgery, 6 h after RIPC/sham intervention, and on the 1st postoperative day. Tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12p70, IL-13, and interferon (IFN)-gamma were analyzed using a multiplex immunoassay. RESULTS: The average age of the RIPC group was 67 years (±10) and 64 years (±12) in the sham group. Plasma levels of the pro-inflammatory cytokines changed significantly between preoperative measures to 1st postoperative day between RIPC and sham; TNF-α (p < 0.001), IL-6 (p < 0.001), IL-8 (p < 0.001), IL-12p70 (p < 0.001), and IFN-γ (p < 0.001). No significant differences in cytokine levels were shown between groups at any specific time points. CONCLUSION: RIPC does not attenuate pro-inflammatory cytokine release in head and neck cancer patients undergoing free flap reconstruction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02548377.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.