BACKGROUND: The reversed sural artery flap is a well-described method for lower limb reconstruction. However, in the standard technique, the flap is usually not harvested from the proximal third of the leg. We conducted this study to evaluate the efficiency, safety, and success rate of the reversed sural flap harvested from the proximal third of the leg. METHODS: The authors harvested medium to very large sized flaps from or extended to the upper third of the calf in 28 patients to cover the defects in the distal tibia, ankle, heel, foot, and sole. RESULTS: With proximal extension of the flap, we would have a longer and larger flap with a safer pedicle. The majority of flaps resulted in a good coverage of defects. Only the distal 1cm of a large flap developed marginal necrosis in the distal border, which was treated with a secondary skin graft. Six flaps developed venous congestion. In seven other patients, minor complications such as hypertrophic scar in the donor site, rupture of sutures, and superficial epidermolysis occurred. In these 13 patients, the complications did not influence the final outcome. CONCLUSION: Extension of reversed sural island flap to the proximal third of the leg was safe and reliable. It was efficiently used to treat patients with large and far wounds, from the distal leg to the distal foot and the sole with more versatility and easier reach to the recipient site.
BACKGROUND: The reversed sural artery flap is a well-described method for lower limb reconstruction. However, in the standard technique, the flap is usually not harvested from the proximal third of the leg. We conducted this study to evaluate the efficiency, safety, and success rate of the reversed sural flap harvested from the proximal third of the leg. METHODS: The authors harvested medium to very large sized flaps from or extended to the upper third of the calf in 28 patients to cover the defects in the distal tibia, ankle, heel, foot, and sole. RESULTS: With proximal extension of the flap, we would have a longer and larger flap with a safer pedicle. The majority of flaps resulted in a good coverage of defects. Only the distal 1cm of a large flap developed marginal necrosis in the distal border, which was treated with a secondary skin graft. Six flaps developed venous congestion. In seven other patients, minor complications such as hypertrophic scar in the donor site, rupture of sutures, and superficial epidermolysis occurred. In these 13 patients, the complications did not influence the final outcome. CONCLUSION: Extension of reversed sural island flap to the proximal third of the leg was safe and reliable. It was efficiently used to treat patients with large and far wounds, from the distal leg to the distal foot and the sole with more versatility and easier reach to the recipient site.