Lower Extremity Defects Research Articles

Reconstruction of traumatic and non-traumatic lower extremity defects with local or free flaps

Summary Background Despite continuous surgical advances, reconstruction of complex lower extremity wounds remains challenging. The indication of local flaps or microsurgical free tissue transfer depends on the anatomical location and size of the defect, as well as the comorbidities and general condition of the patient. In this study, local and free flap reconstruction of distal lower extremity defects was assessed, and postoperative complications and limb salvage were analyzed. Methods A total of 34 patients were included in this retrospective study. Distal lower extremity defects were of traumatic (29%) and non-traumatic (71%) etiologies. Patient characteristics, flap selection, postoperative complications, and limb preservation within the first 12 months were assessed and compared by reconstructive treatment concept. Statistical analysis included parametric and non-parametric tests. The two-sided alpha was set at 5% for all statistical tests. Results While 21 patients were treated with local flaps, 13 patients underwent microsurgical free flap reconstruction. The most common comorbidities were peripheral vascular disease and diabetes. Local flaps included the gastrocnemius muscle flap, soleus flap, sural flap, and plantaris medialis flap. The most commonly used free flaps for soft tissue reconstruction were latissimus dorsi and gracilis muscle flaps. The overall lower extremity preservation rate was 94.1%. There was one case of below-knee amputation 1 month after free flap reconstruction, and one case of first-ray amputation of the foot after local flap coverage. Conclusion Reconstruction of lower extremity defects can be achieved by local or free flap reconstruction. Flap selection is influenced by anatomical location, defect size, and patient factors.

Distally Based Peroneus Brevis Muscle Flap for Lower Extremity Defect Reconstruction in Severely Ill Multimorbid Patients.

Reconstruction of lower extremity soft tissue defects is an exceptional surgical challenge, especially in multimorbid, elderly and severely ill patients with their thin and tense local soft-tissue conditions and increased perioperative risk. The distally based peroneus brevis muscle flap (DPBM), a local flap based on the muscular branches of the fibular artery, could pose a pragmatic solution. The objective of this study was to evaluate and quantify DPBM defect reconstruction in the lower leg, especially in elderly, multimorbid and severely ill patients. The DPBM as a surgical option in defect reconstruction in multimorbid, elderly, severely ill patients (inclusion criteria: at least 3 pre-existing comorbidities, patient age: at least 55 years, ASA status: at least III) was evaluated in a retrospective single-centre study from 01 April 2014 to 31 December 2019. The electronic SAP health records (EHR) were analysed according to 18 criteria, including patient details, extent of multimorbidity, defect characteristics, clinical outcome, and complications. Ten patients with a mean age of 72.6 years, a mean number of 8.5 pre-existing comorbidities and a mean ASA status of 3.1 met the inclusion criteria. The leading causes of defects, each with exposed tendons, bones, joint capsule, or joint, were chronic ulcers (n = 5) and soft tissue defects resulting from fractures (n = 3). In case of DMPB the success rate was 100% (no partial or total loss) with a short operating time (mean: 103 min) and a brief postoperative length of stay (mean: 11 d). In 2 patients (20%), DPBM surgery had to be discontinued intraoperatively and an alternative technique of defect reconstruction had to be adopted. The reasons included impaired muscle perfusion and fatty degeneration of the peroneus brevis muscle. The DPBM flap allows straightforward, fast and safe defect reconstruction in the lower extremity, particularly in elderly, multimorbid and severely ill patients at risk. In patients with inadequate peroneal brevis muscle, however, DMPB surgery should be discontinued intraoperatively and the defect reconstructed using alternative techniques.

Reliability of distally based sural flap in elderly patients: comparison between elderly and young patients in a single center

BackgroundReconstructions the soft-tissue defects of the distal lower extremities in the elderly patients (≥ 60 years old) are full of challenges because of many comorbidities. The purpose of this study was to report the clinical application of the distally based sural flap in the elderly patients, and to verify the reliability of this flap in the elderly patients.MethodsBetween March of 2005 and December of 2019, 53 patients aged over 60-year-old and 55 patients aged 18 to 30-year-old who underwent the procedure have been included in this study. The reconstruction outcomes, medical-related complications, flap viability-related complications and potential risk factors are compared between the group A (≥ 60 years old) and group B (ranging from 18 to 30 years old).ResultsThe partial necrosis rate in group A (9.43%) is higher than group B (9.09%), but the difference is not significant (P > 0.05). The constitute ratio of the defects that were successfully covered using the sural flap alone or combining with simple salvage method (i.e., skin grafting) is 96.22% and 98.18% in group A and B, respectively (P > 0.05). The differences of the risk flaps factors that affected the survival of distally based sural flap were not significant between group A and B (P > 0.05).ConclusionsThe distally based sural flap can be effectively used to repair the soft-tissue defect of the lower extremity in the elderly patients. It is safe and reliable to harvest and transfer the flap in one stage, and the delay surgery is not necessary.

Outcomes following soft-tissue reconstruction for traumatic lower extremity defects at an orthoplastic limb salvage center: The need for Lower Extremity Guidelines for Salvage (L.E.G.S.)

Abstract Introduction Approximately 160–180,000 adults suffer limb loss annually, often due to trauma. The Penn Orthoplastic Limb Salvage Center enables concerted orthopedic/plastic (orthoplastic) surgery care and microvascular expertise for optimal outcomes. The authors review their experience and propose guidelines to facilitate early transfer for lower extremity salvage. Methods A review (2002–2019) was performed of patients who underwent free-flap reconstruction (as a proxy for severity) for lower extremity traumatic injuries. Demographics, risk factors, imaging, operative details, and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Further analyses were performed comparing patients transferred to our limb salvage center - transfers - and those admitted to our institution first following their trauma – direct admits. Results 178 patients (62.4% transfers, 37.6% direct admits) met inclusion criteria. Osteomyelitis was higher among transfers (46.1% vs. 22%, p = 0.006). There was a greater delay in soft tissue coverage in transferred patients (p = 0.016). On multivariate analysis, flap within 30 days was protective of osteomyelitis (Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.233, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.085–0.639). Limb salvage rates were 94% and 91.8% for the direct admits and transferred patients, respectively (p = 0.584), at median follow-up of 941.5 days. Overall, full weight-bearing status was achieved in 77% of patients, with no difference between groups (p = 0.163). Conclusion Despite microvascular advances, delay in referral for salvage contributes to unnecessary patient morbidity. Microsurgery/flap success is independent of timing, likely attributable to specialized care at a limb salvage center. Similar to American Burn Association guidelines for transferring burn injuries to specialized centers, the authors propose the Lower Extremity Guide for Salvage (L.E.G.S.).

Comparing Outcomes of Single Versus Double Venous Anastomosis in Free Flap Operation for Lower Extremity Defect Reconstruction: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Free flap operation is a common procedure for reconstructing defects of the lower extremity. However, venous congestion often results in flap failure in lower extremity reconstruction. Dual-vein anastomosis, one proposed solution to overcome this problem, has been controversial in terms of its efficacy. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of dual venous anastomosis on venous congestion and flap failure of the lower extremities.<br/>Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar base, and Embase were searched to identify relevant studies presenting complication rates for groups of patients who had undergone single venous or dual venous anastomosis in lower extremity reconstructions. The relative risks of the following complications between these two groups (single venous and dual venous anastomosis) were calculated: flap failure, flap necrosis, flap congestion, and take-back to operating room.<br/>Results: A total of eight articles and 1,434 flaps were included. Double venous anastomosis was performed for 607 flaps, and single anastomosis for 827 flaps. Etiologies of defects and types of flaps were diverse. There was no significant difference in venous congestion, flap necrosis, or flap failure between the groups with one versus two vein anastomoses. However, the dual venous anastomosis group displayed a trend toward decreasing flap-related complications.<br/>Conclusion: Although there was a trend toward decreasing flap-related complications in the double venous anastomosis group, dual venous anastomosis had no statistically significant protective effects in decreasing free flap failure in the leg.

Reconstruction of Extensive Soft Tissue Defects of Lower Extremity With the Extended Anterolateral Thigh Flap.

The anterolateral thigh flap is a classic flap used for various reconstruction defects. However, the flap viability of extended large skin paddles (ie, 240 cm2) was doubted by many surgeons. This study reports successful experience of reconstructing extensive soft tissue defects of lower extremity using extended large skin paddles. Twelve consecutive patients who had undergone reconstruction of defects using an extended anterolateral thigh flap were identified. Patient characteristics (age, sex, defect location, injured structures, and type of flap) and outcome data were analyzed retrospectively. One artery and 2 accompanying veins were anastomosed to vascularize each flap. Follow-up periods ranged from 10 to 91 months postoperatively. The average size of the flaps was 268.75 cm2 (range = 220-391 cm2). All flaps were perforator flaps with one perforator except that 2 perforators were used in 3 patients. Two patients suffered partial flap necrosis of the distal portion with delayed healing. In conclusion, the extended anterolateral thigh flap is a considerable option for massive defects requiring composite tissue coverage. This flap is advantageous for reconstructing various complex defects in the lower extremities, providing a pliable and vascularized tissue to cover exposed extensive defects including tendons, nerves, and bones.

Implications of Free Temporoparietal Fascial Flap Reconstruction in the Pediatric Population.

The temporoparietal fascial flap (TPFF) is a versatile tool that can be used in the reconstruction of head and neck and distal upper and lower extremity defects. The TPFF may be harvested as a pedicle or free flap as well as with the temporalis muscle and/or adjacent calvarial bone as a composite flap. As a free flap, the TPFF has been used as a joint gliding surface with coverage of nerves and tendons, for extremity soft tissue repair, for tracheal and pharyngeal coverage and for defects of the nose, scalp, and auricle. This article focuses on the use of the free TPFF in the pediatric population through systemic review of the medical literature. Current perspectives on the use of this flap and microsurgery in general in pediatric patients are addressed.

Propeller flap: Orthoplastic approach for coverage of distal leg and ankle defects

BackgroundCovering soft tissue defects of the distal one-third of the leg and the Achilles tendon region and is a challenging problem for an orthopedic surgeon. With recent advancements in the anatomical knowledge of perforating vessels, perforator-pedicled propeller flaps have become increasingly popular in recent decades. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of our patients whose soft tissue defects in the distal leg were reconstructed with propeller flaps and assessed association of complications with age, gender, flap size and arc of rotation. MethodsPatients that had a reconstruction with a propeller flap at the ankle from 2013 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The main indications for the propeller flap were small- and medium-sized soft tissue defects of the distal lower limb. 20 propeller flaps were applied to 19 patients (14 male, 5 female) for various lower extremity defects. ResultsThe mean follow-up duration was 2 years (range, 6 months to 6 years). The average flap size was 82 cm2 (range, 48–125 cm2). The flap was rotated 180 degrees in nine patients The source of the perforator vessel was the tibialis posterior artery in 14 cases, the peroneal artery in 4 cases, both the tibialis posterior and peroneal arteries in 1 case. Four complications (20 %) occured postoperatively. Two patients developed partial necrosis at the tip of the flap, and two patients developed superficial epidermolysis. No correlations were found between complications and flap size and the arc of rotation. ConclusionsThe propeller flap is a reliable option for reconstruction of small to moderate defects in the lower extremity with good clinical results and minimal donor-site morbidity. It is applicable for orthopedic surgeons who do not have microsurgical experience or an available microscope in the operating room.

LONG-TERM DONOR-SITE MORBIDITY IN COMPOSITE ANTEROLATERAL THIGH FREE FLAP FOR COMPLEX DEFECT OF LOWER LEG AND FOOT RECONSTRUCTION

Background: In recent years, the composite anterolateral thigh free flap with tensor fasciae latae or vastus lateralis has been a new-applied type of flap that can provide very good reconstruction materials in complex defects of lower leg and foot. The study purpose is to evaluate the systematically complications of donor site, related factors to results of the donor area, in order to apply the result to improve the treatment, which have not been much reported in literature. Materials and Methods: Systematic donor site morbilidy evaluation in a prospective, uncontrolled clinical descriptive study of 33 composite anterolateral thigh free flaps in various forms to reconstruct anatomical structures or to resconstruct deep defects combined with covering the surfaces for complex soft tissue defects in lower extremities for 32 patients due to different causes in lower leg and foot area from 2014-2019 at Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy. Examining and evaluating aesthetic and functional result of donor-site 3 months and 6 months up to 2 year after surgery; evaluating the correlation between the width and the type of the flaps and donor site closure methods. Result: In 33 composite flaps used, flap width to thigh circumference less than 20% in 27 cases (81.8%), more than 20% in 6 cases (18.20% ); There were 28 cases in which the donor site was directly closed, 5 cases required skin graft; All direct closed cases had flap width/ thigh circumference index below 20%; On the contrary, in cases having this index greater than 20%, the donor site required skin graft with p < 0.01. There are 11/33 (33.33%) of cases reported complications in donor site ; lateral thigh paresthesia is the most complicated complication with 8/33 cases (24.24%), followed by bad scarring 3/33 cases (9.09%). Conclusion: Long term follow up donor site morbility after composite anterior thigh free flap present 11/33 cases (33.33%): mostly complications of the donor site are thigh paresthesia with 8/33 cases (24.24%), and bad scarring 3/33 cases (9,09%), which improve time by time. Keywords: Composite anterior thigh free flap, lower extremities soft tissue defect, donor site morbidity

Treatment options for infected bone defects in the lower extremities: free vascularized fibular graft or Ilizarov bone transport?

ObjectiveThe objective was to explore the relative indications of free vascularized fibular graft (FVFG) and Ilizarov bone transport (IBT) in the treatment of infected bone defects of lower extremities via comparative analysis on the clinical characteristics and efficacies.MethodsThe clinical data of 66 cases with post-traumatic infected bone defects of the lower extremities who underwent FVFG (n = 23) or IBT (n = 43) from July 2014 to June 2018 were retrieved and retrospectively analyzed. Clinical characteristics, operation time, and intraoperative blood loss were statistically compared between two groups. Specifically, the clinical efficacies of two methods were statistically evaluated according to the external fixation time/index, recurrence rate of deep infection, incidence of complications, the times of reoperation, and final functional score of the affected extremities.ResultsGender, age, cause of injury, Gustilo grade of initial injury, proportion of complicated injuries in other parts of the affected extremities, and numbers of femoral/tibial defect cases did not differ significantly between treatment groups, while infection site distribution after debridement (shaft/metaphysis) differed moderately, with metaphysis infection little more frequent in the FVFG group (P = 0.068). Femoral/tibial defect length was longer in the FVFG group (9.96 ± 2.27 vs. 8.74 ± 2.52 cm, P = 0.014). More patients in the FVFG group presented with moderate or complex wounds with soft-tissue defects. FVFG treatment required a longer surgical time (6.60 ± 1.34 vs. 3.12 ± 0.99 h) and resulted in greater intraoperative blood loss (873.91 ± 183.94 vs. 386.08 ± 131.98 ml; both P < 0.05) than the IBT group, while average follow-up time, recurrence rate of postoperative osteomyelitis, degree of bony union, and final functional scores did not differ between treatment groups. However, FVFG required a shorter external fixation time (7.04 ± 1.72 vs. 13.16 ± 2.92 months), yielded a lower external fixation index (0.73 ± 0.28 vs. 1.55 ± 0.28), and resulted in a lower incidence of postoperative complications (0.87 ± 0.76 vs. 2.21±1.78, times/case, P < 0.05). The times of reoperation in the two groups did not differ (0.78 ± 0.60 vs. 0.98 ± 0.99 times/case, P = 0.615).ConclusionBoth FVFG and IBT are effective methods for repairing and reconstructing infected bone defects of the lower extremities, with unique advantages and limitations. Generally, FVFG is recommended for patients with soft tissue defects, bone defects adjacent to joints, large bone defects (particularly monocortical defects), and those who can tolerate microsurgery.

Microsurgical reconstruction of extensive lower extremity defects with the conjoined parascapular and latissimus dorsi free flap

Extensive lower extremity soft-tissue defects pose a reconstructive challenge. We present our experience with the conjoined parascapular and latissimus dorsi (CPLD) free flap. From October 2008 to October 2017, 69 patients (14 female, 55 male) with a mean age of 50 years (range: 16-79 years) underwent reconstruction of lower extremity defects with the CPLD free flap. Mean defect size was 24 × 36 cm (range: 14 × 20 to 45 × 80 cm). Mean latissimus dorsi (LD) flap size was 19 × 28 cm (range: 14 × 20 to 28 × 42 cm) and mean parascapular (PSC) flap size was 8 × 25 cm (range: 5 × 12 to 11 × 33 cm). Six patients (9%) experienced a total of eight microvascular complications: arterial thrombosis (n = 1), venous thrombosis (n = 6), combined arterial and venous thrombosis (n = 1). The re-exploration rate was 13%. Major complications of the donor-site were seen in 9 patients (13%), of the flap in 13 patients (19%), and of both in 6 patients (9%). Fifteen patients experienced partial flap necrosis (22%). Three CPLD and one PSC flap were lost (5%). PSC flap length was a significant predictor of distal flap necrosis (χ2 (1) = 13.2, p = .004, OR = 1.343, 95% CI [1.098-1.642]). PSC flap width was a significant predictor of donor-site revisions (χ2 (1) = 15.9, p = .010, OR = 4.745, 95% CI [1.584-14.213]). Arterio-venous loops (AVLs) tended to increase the risk of microvascular thrombosis (χ2 (1) = 3.7, p = .08, OR = 4.1, 95% CI [0.9-18.7]). The CPLD free flap is an extremely large and highly reliable flap, allowing one-stage reconstruction of extensive lower extremity defects. It may overcome the need for multiple flaps in selected cases.

The Effect of Perforator Skeletonization on Pedicled Fasciocutaneous Flaps of the Lower Extremity: A Systematic Review.

Lower extremity defects often require free tissue transfer due to a paucity of local donor sites. Locoregional perforator-based flaps offer durable, single-stage reconstruction while avoiding the pitfalls of microsurgery. Multiple harvest techniques are described, yet few studies provide outcome comparisons. Specifically, no study has examined the impact of perforator flap pedicle skeletonization on reconstructive outcomes. This systematic review characterizes technique and impact of pedicle skeletonization on perforator-based fasciocutaneous flaps of the lower extremity. PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were reviewed for literature examining perforator-based fasciocutaneous flaps from knee to ankle, from January 2000 through November 2018. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews-Individual Participant Data (PRISMA-IPD) structure was used. Thirty-six articles were included for quantitative analysis. Of 586 flaps, 365 were skeletonized (60.1%) with 58 major (9.9%) and 19 minor complications (3.2%). With skeletonization, overall reoperative rate was higher (odds ratio [OR]: 9.71, p = 0.004), specifically in propeller (OR: 12.50, p = 0.004) and rotational flaps (OR: 18.87, p = 0.004). The complication rate of rotational flaps also increased (OR: 2.60, p = 0.04). Notably, skeletonization reduced complications in flaps rotated 90 degrees or more (OR: 0.21, p = 0.02). Reoperative rate of distal third defects (OR: 14.08, p = 0.02), flaps over 48 cm2 (OR: 33.33, p = 0.01), and length to width ratios over 1.75 (OR: 7.52, p = 0.03) was increased with skeletonization. Skeletonization increased complications in traumatic defects (OR: 2.87, p = 0.04) and reduced complications in malignant defects (OR: 0.10, p = 0.01). Pedicled, perforator-based flaps can provide a reliable locoregional alternative to free tissue transfer for lower extremity defects. Though skeletonization increased the overall reoperative rate, the complication rate for flaps with 90 degrees or more of rotation was significantly reduced. This suggests skeletonization should be considered when large rotational movements are anticipated to reduce complications that can arise from pedicle compression and venous congestion.

Medial Sural Artery Musculocutaneous Perforator (MSAP) Flap for Reconstruction of Pharyngoesophageal Defects.

We describe the use of the medial sural artery musculocutaneous perforator (MSAP) flap at our institution. It is a relatively new flap, originally described in 2001 for lower extremity defects, that has become increasingly popular for head and neck reconstruction due to its versatility, thinness, pliability, long pedicle, and particularly favorable donor site. It has been described for reconstruction of oral defects, but there is little published on its use in pharyngeal reconstruction. We suggest that the MSAP is an ideal flap for addressing defects caused by pharyngoesophageal stenosis, pharyngeal fistulas, or laryngopharyngectomies. We review 5 cases at our institution from June 2016 to November 2017.

Free Anterolateral Thigh Versus Vastus Lateralis Muscle Flaps for Coverage of Lower Extremity Defects in Chronic Wounds

The thigh has been called the reconstructive warehouse. The anterolateral thigh (ALT) and vastus lateralis (VL) flaps are popular options for free tissue transfer in lower extremity reconstruction. We sought to review the largest experience of these flaps in the chronic wound population. We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent lower extremity reconstruction using ALT or VL flaps by a single surgeon between 2012 and 2018. Fifty ALT and 34 VL flaps were identified. Comorbidities were similar between groups with the exception of body mass index (ALT, 26.8; VL, 30.1; P = 0.0121). There was also a significant difference rate of independent ambulation preoperatively (ALT, 98.0%; VL, 85.3%; P = 0.0375). An adjunct was needed for recipient site coverage in 31.5% (19/50) of ALT patients and 100% (34/34) of VL patients. Of the patients who received skin grafts, delayed placement was more frequent in the ALT (53.3%) versus VL cohort (18.2%) (P = 0.0192). Median graft take and the rate of skin graft revision were not statistically different. Flap success rates were similar: ALT, 92.0%; and VL, 94.1%. Overall complication rates were not significantly different: ALT, 26.0%; and VL, 38.2%. Infectious complications were also comparable. Subsequent debulking procedures were performed on 8.0% of ALT flaps and 11.8% VL flaps (P = 0.7092). Limb salvage rates were similar between both cohorts (ALT, 82.0%; VL, 88.2%). Ambulation rate was significantly higher for the ALT cohort at 92.0% compared with 73.5% for the VL cohort (P = 0.0216). Median follow-up was similar for both groups. We present the largest comparison study of ALT and VL flaps in lower extremity salvage. Complication rates, flap success, and limb salvage were similar between the 2 cohorts. Despite a high prevalence of osteomyelitis in both cohorts, there was no difference in infectious complications. Although the need for skin grafting remains an inherent disadvantage of the VL flap, a significant proportion of ALT recipients also needed an adjunct for recipient site coverage. Ambulation rate was significantly greater in the ALT group. However, flap type was no longer significant for ambulation when controlling for preoperative ambulatory status.

Adipose Tissue-preserved Skin Grafts for Lower Extremity Defects: Recommendations to Optimize Outcomes.

Background:Adipose tissue-preserved skin grafts (ATPSGs) are full-thickness skin grafts with inclusion of a thin layer of adipose tissue. ATPSGs are recommended for reconstruction of anatomic areas that are cosmetically sensitive and for areas that functionally benefit from additional soft tissue thickness compared to traditional skin grafts. Careful intraoperative technique and postoperative care are mandatory for ATPSG success, given the expected higher metabolic demands compared to traditional grafts. A strict postoperative protocol is especially important after reconstruction of lower extremity defects.Methods:Detailed descriptions of intraoperative and postoperative care for ATPSG reconstructions are provided. A case is presented displaying lower extremity reconstruction with an ATPSG. The intraoperative technique includes meticulous hemostasis of the recipient site, atraumatic handling of recipient skin edges, anatomical epidermal-to-epidermal reapproximation, avoidance of tissue strangulation during inset, and careful bolster placement. The postoperative protocol after lower extremity reconstruction includes strict elevation, non-weight-bearing status, and eventual dangle protocol.Results:An 85-year-old woman was treated with an ATSG for a middle-third leg resection of squamous cell carcinoma resulting in a 9 × 5 cm defect. The strict postoperative protocol was initiated, but the patient was noncompliant with elevation and weight-bearing restrictions. She had postoperative congestion and epidermolysis that was treated with local wound care without need for additional surgery.Conclusions:There are many benefits to ATPSG reconstruction when chosen for the appropriate candidate. The meticulous technique and strict adherence to the postoperative protocol are crucial when these reconstructions are performed. Detailed descriptions of intraoperative and postoperative recommendations to optimize outcomes after ATPSG are presented.

Smartphone Thermography for Lower Extremity Local Flap Perforator Mapping.

The versatile application of local perforator flaps for coverage throughout the lower extremity has already been well proven. Often a "free-style" approach has been used to design these flaps, as conventional imaging devices for perforator identification may be too expensive or unavailable. The recent adaptation of Smartphone thermal digital imaging may now prove to be a cheaper and more readily available means for identifying the requisite perforators that will sustain these local flaps. Over the past year, a prospective study was undertaken of all patients having a local perforator flap for coverage of a lower extremity defect. Twenty-eight local perforator flaps involving all subtypes were utilized in 25 patients. Smartphone thermography was used in all patients preoperatively to identify preferable perforator or vascular network "hot spots" that allowed appropriate flap design. Intraoperative and postoperative monitoring was similarly done for all flaps to determine outcomes. All local perforator flaps were based on perforators identified using smartphone thermography. All flaps (23 or 82.1%) that the thermal digital image predicted 100% viability totally survived. Five flaps were predicted to have marginal viability, but two nevertheless survived completely while the others required only minor readjustments. Peninsular and keystone variety perforator flaps were those most commonly used.Thermography always facilitated making the correct decision as to whether a proximal- or distal-based peninsular flap would be superior. Subfascial elevation of cool spots in keystone flaps were found to be least likely to interfere with flap perfusion. Smartphone thermography is an inexpensive and expeditious means for identification of "hot spots" that is always used by us to ensure perfusion to lower extremity perforator local flaps. This is a complementary technique for their safer design, harvest, and subsequent monitoring in conjunction with more complex screening tools as indicated.

Comparative Study between Perforator Based Island Flaps and Fasciocutaneous Flaps in Reconstruction of Lower Extremities

Background: Open wound of the lower limb is one of the common health problems that have a significant economic and social burden. It has a risk of osteomyelitis of the underlying bone and even necrosis can occur. Objective: To evaluate the difference between the perforator-based island flaps and fasciocutaneous flaps in reconstruction of lower extremities regarding; functional, aesthetic outcome, size of the flap, degree of rotation, technical difficulties, percentage of flaps survival, flap loss, operative time and donor site morbidity. Patients and Methods: The study was conducted on 40 patients with soft tissue defects in lower extremities which were equally distributed into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 20 patients that were treated by perforator based island flap and group 2 that consisted of 20 patients treated by fasciocutaneous flap. Results: The two techniques had similar results when evaluated by the Likert scale. The results of both procedures had no significant statistical differences as regards any of the Likert score components namely, color, texture, appearance, and shape. The main finding of the current study was the comparable postoperative outcome for both techniques. The number of patients that had necrosis was 7 in perforate based island flap and 4 in fasciocutaneous flap which represented 35% and 20% respectively of each studied group and this was statistically insignificant. Conclusion: Any flap can be used as a perforator-based island flap in which the source vessel is completely preserved. Perforator flaps have multiple advantages over Fasciocutaneous flaps as allowing increased diversity and versatility in the design and composition of flaps.

Comparative Study between Perforator Based Island Flaps and Fasciocutaneous Flaps in Reconstruction of Lower Extremities

Background: Open wound of the lower limb is one of the common health problems that have a significant economic and social burden. It has a risk of osteomyelitis of the underlying bone and even necrosis can occur. Objective: To evaluate the difference between the perforator-based island flaps and fasciocutaneous flaps in reconstruction of lower extremities regarding; functional, aesthetic outcome, size of the flap, degree of rotation, technical difficulties, percentage of flaps survival, flap loss, operative time and donor site morbidity. Patients and Methods: The study was conducted on 40 patients with soft tissue defects in lower extremities which were equally distributed into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 20 patients that were treated by perforator based island flap and group 2 that consisted of 20 patients treated by fasciocutaneous flap. Results: The two techniques had similar results when evaluated by the Likert scale. The results of both procedures had no significant statistical differences as regards any of the Likert score components namely, color, texture, appearance, and shape. The main finding of the current study was the comparable postoperative outcome for both techniques. The number of patients that had necrosis was 7 in perforate based island flap and 4 in fasciocutaneous flap which represented 35% and 20% respectively of each studied group and this was statistically insignificant. Conclusion: Any flap can be used as a perforator-based island flap in which the source vessel is completely preserved. Perforator flaps have multiple advantages over Fasciocutaneous flaps as allowing increased diversity and versatility in the design and composition of flaps.

Algorithm for Free Perforator Flap Selection in Lower Extremity Reconstruction Based on 563 Cases.

Microsurgical lower extremity reconstruction remains a challenge. The use of perforator flaps in lower extremity reconstruction is expanding. The authors present an algorithm to guide in the selection of the ideal free perforator flap that can be tailored to each lower extremity defect. The authors conducted a retrospective review of lower extremity reconstruction using free perforator flaps over a 7-year period. Demographics, comorbidities, defect characteristics, operative details, complications, and secondary procedures were documented. Pairwise comparisons of flap types were performed to differentiate flaps on the basis of flap size, thickness, and pedicle length. A total of 563 free perforator flaps were performed. The most common causes were trauma (36.5 percent) and diabetes (24.4 percent). Nine flaps were used, with the most common being superficial circumflex iliac perforator (51.2 percent) and anterolateral thigh (33.2 percent). Size differed significantly between flap types (p < 0.05), with the exception of thoracodorsal artery perforator versus gluteal artery perforator flaps (p = 0.26). The thinnest flaps were posterior interosseous artery perforator (3.7 ± 0.5 mm) and superficial circumflex iliac perforator (5.4 ± 0.8 mm). The thickest flaps were deep inferior epigastric perforator (11.1 ± 3.9 mm) and anterolateral thigh (9.0 ± 1.5 mm). The shortest pedicles were in posterior interosseous artery perforator (3.3 ± 0.3 cm) and superficial circumflex iliac perforator flaps (5.2 ± 0.8 cm). The longest pedicles were in deep inferior epigastric perforator (11.7 ± 1.4 cm), thoracodorsal artery perforator (9.3 ± 1.4 cm), and anterolateral thigh flaps (9.2 ± 0.8 cm). Free perforator flaps are reliable in lower extremity reconstruction. The authors believe their algorithm for flap selection helps to optimize form and function, decrease operative time, and minimize donor-site morbidity and secondary procedures. Therapeutic, IV.

Revisiting the Reverse Sural Artery Flap in Distal Lower Extremity Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Risk Analysis.

The reverse sural artery flap (RSAF) is a popular option for patients with distal lower extremity defects who are not ideal candidates for free flap reconstruction. This is the first systematic review and pooled analysis of surgical characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes of the RSAF. A systematic literature review was conducted. All studies reporting on patients undergoing RSAF reconstruction and their outcomes were included. Outcomes were pooled and analyzed using Fisher exact or χ test. Forty-three studies (479 patients, 481 flaps) were analyzed. The majority of patients were male (70.3%), and average ± SD age was 46.9 ± 16.7 years. Rates of smoking, diabetes mellitus (DM), and peripheral vascular disease (PVD) were 34.6%, 35.4%, and 12.3%, respectively. Defect etiologies were largely traumatic (60.4%). The most common defect location was the heel (40.8%). Flap modifications were reported in 123 flaps (25.6%). The most common modification was adipofascial extension (20.3%).Overall, the partial and total flap loss rates were 15.4% and 3.1%, respectively. Partial flap loss was significantly increased in smokers (28.9% vs 12.2% in nonsmokers, P = 0.0195). Technical modifications decreased the odds of partial necrosis by almost 3-fold compared with traditional RSAF reconstruction (7.2% vs 17.9%; odds ratio, 2.8 [1.4-5.8]; P = 0.0035). Patient age, DM, and PVD were not significantly associated with flap loss. The RSAF remains a safe salvage option for patients with DM or PVD but should be used with caution in smokers. Technical modifications to minimize pedicle compression significantly reduce rates of partial necrosis.