Abstract

Aims: Pressure injury is a gradually increasing disease in the aging society. The reconstruction of a pressure ulcer requires a patient and surgical technique. The patients were exposed to the radiation risk under other ways of detection of perforators such as computed tomographic angiography and magnetic resonance angiography. Here, we compared two radiation-free methods of a superior gluteal artery perforator (SGAP), flap harvesting and anchoring. One is the traditional method of detecting only handheld acoustic Doppler sonography (ADS) (Group 1). The other involves the assistance of intraoperative indocyanine green fluorescent near-infrared angiography (ICGFA) and handheld ADS (Group 2). Materials and Methods: This is a single-center, retrospective, observational study that included patients with sacral pressure injury grades III and IV, who had undergone reconstructive surgery with an SGAP flap between January 2019 and January 2021. Two detection methods were used intraoperatively. The main outcome measures included the operative time, estimated blood loss, major perforator detection numbers, wound condition, and incidence of complications. Results: Sixteen patients underwent an SGAP flap reconstruction. All patients were diagnosed with grade III to IV sacral pressure injury after a series of examinations. Group 1 included 8 patients with a mean operative time of 91 min, and the mean estimated blood loss was 50 mL. The mean number of perforators was 4. Postoperative complications included one wound infection in one case and wound edge dehiscence in one case. No mortality was associated with this procedure. The mean total hospital stay was 16 days. Group 2 included 8 patients with a mean operative time of 107.5 min, and the mean estimated blood loss was 50 mL. The mean number of perforators was 5. Postoperative complications included one wound infection. No mortality was associated with this procedure. The mean total hospital stay was 13 days. Conclusions: The combination of detection of the SGAP by ICGFA and handheld ADS for the reconstruction of a sacral pressure injury provides a more accurate method and provides the advantage of being radiation-free.

Highlights

  • This article is an open access articlePressure injuries are areas with tissue necrosis and ulceration where soft tissues are compressed between hard surfaces and a bony structure

  • Several different kinds of flaps have been introduced over the years to reconstruct sacral defects, such as local flaps, V-Y advancement fasciocutaneous flaps, gluteus maximum muscle-based flaps, inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps, and superior gluteal artery perforator (SGAP) flaps [1]

  • We retrospectively reviewed data from 16 patients (Tables 1 and 2) with sacral pressure injury who underwent modified SGAP flap reconstruction surgery

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Pressure injuries are areas with tissue necrosis and ulceration where soft tissues are compressed between hard surfaces and a bony structure. They are caused by mechanical pressure in combination with friction, shearing forces, and moisture. Several different kinds of flaps have been introduced over the years to reconstruct sacral defects, such as local flaps, V-Y advancement fasciocutaneous flaps, gluteus maximum muscle-based flaps, inferior gluteal artery perforator flaps, and superior gluteal artery perforator (SGAP) flaps [1]. Reliable perforators are the most important factors for a successful perforator-based flaps reconstruction [2]. An accurate preoperative mapping of the perforators is essential for the safe planning of propeller flaps

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call