BACKGROUND: Functional outcomes of lower extremity reconstruction compared with amputation have been evaluated. However, there are little comparative data among the different reconstructive options. With the recent increase in perforator flaps, we compared the functional outcomes of muscle and perforator flaps. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 136 lower extremity trauma patients who underwent reconstruction with either a free muscle or perforator flap during a 7-year period. Forty-two of these patients completed the study. Patients answered the short musculoskeletal functional assessment form and supplemental questions. A physical therapist evaluated performance of physical tasks. Donor site sensation was measured with the pressure specified sensing device. Radiographic fracture union was evaluated by an orthopedic surgeon. RESULTS: Of the 42 patients enrolled, 20 had coverage with perforator flaps and 22 with muscle flaps. Quality of life and functional outcomes demonstrate no difference (p > 0.05). Ninety-three percent of patients would go through the limb salvage process to avoid amputation. Sensation at the donor site was diminished in all patients; however, the perforator flap donor site had more significant sensory loss (p = 0.005). Time to bony union (p = 0.51), union in the presence of infection (p = 0.85), and infection after flap (p = 0.87) was not related to flap type. CONCLUSION: Both muscle and perforator flaps provide vascularized coverage, which nourishes the fracture but muscle flaps pilfer a functional unit which may not be inconsequential in a patient trauma. This pilot study suggests that functional outcomes of perforator skin flaps are equal to muscle flaps and a larger prospective study is warranted.
BACKGROUND: Functional outcomes of lower extremity reconstruction compared with amputation have been evaluated. However, there are little comparative data among the different reconstructive options. With the recent increase in perforator flaps, we compared the functional outcomes of muscle and perforator flaps. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 136 lower extremity traumapatients who underwent reconstruction with either a free muscle or perforator flap during a 7-year period. Forty-two of these patients completed the study. Patients answered the short musculoskeletal functional assessment form and supplemental questions. A physical therapist evaluated performance of physical tasks. Donor site sensation was measured with the pressure specified sensing device. Radiographic fracture union was evaluated by an orthopedic surgeon. RESULTS: Of the 42 patients enrolled, 20 had coverage with perforator flaps and 22 with muscle flaps. Quality of life and functional outcomes demonstrate no difference (p > 0.05). Ninety-three percent of patients would go through the limb salvage process to avoid amputation. Sensation at the donor site was diminished in all patients; however, the perforator flap donor site had more significant sensory loss (p = 0.005). Time to bony union (p = 0.51), union in the presence of infection (p = 0.85), and infection after flap (p = 0.87) was not related to flap type. CONCLUSION: Both muscle and perforator flaps provide vascularized coverage, which nourishes the fracture but muscle flaps pilfer a functional unit which may not be inconsequential in a patienttrauma. This pilot study suggests that functional outcomes of perforator skin flaps are equal to muscle flaps and a larger prospective study is warranted.
Authors: James M Economides; Michael V DeFazio; Kayvon Golshani; Mark Cinque; Ersilia L Anghel; Christopher E Attinger; Karen Kim Evans Journal: Arch Plast Surg Date: 2017-03-15