BACKGROUND: Skin defects of the foot, ankle and distal lower leg often require coverage by local or distant flaps. We aimed to compare functional outcome and donor-site morbidity following transfer of distally based delayed sural (DSFs) or peroneus brevis flaps (PBFs). METHODS: Between 2003 and 2006, 52 patients (24 DSFs and 28 PBFs) were included. For increased reliability, all extended sural flaps were delayed for 3-15 days. At the end of the follow-up period (minimum 12 months), patients were asked to fill out a modified foot and ankle score (Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS)) questionnaire. In addition, a chart review and a physical examination were performed. RESULTS: Total hospital stay and total number of operations were significantly lower in the PBF group. Minor flap necrosis (<10%) was observed in 21% of the DSF and 7% of the PBF group, and partial (>10%) or total flap loss occurred in one and three patients from the DSF group, respectively. Patient satisfaction, FAOS results and range of motion were comparable in both groups. Defect aetiology and patient age did not influence surgical outcome. CONCLUSION: Donor-site morbidity and functional outcome after DSF and PBF are comparable. A higher rate of complications was observed in the DSF group. Based on our findings, the PBF is recommended as first-line procedure for reconstruction of small- to medium-sized defects at the distal tibia, fibula, ankle and heel. The sural flap might be chosen for extended skin defects especially when a larger arc of rotation is required.
BACKGROUND:Skin defects of the foot, ankle and distal lower leg often require coverage by local or distant flaps. We aimed to compare functional outcome and donor-site morbidity following transfer of distally based delayed sural (DSFs) or peroneus brevis flaps (PBFs). METHODS: Between 2003 and 2006, 52 patients (24 DSFs and 28 PBFs) were included. For increased reliability, all extended sural flaps were delayed for 3-15 days. At the end of the follow-up period (minimum 12 months), patients were asked to fill out a modified foot and ankle score (Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS)) questionnaire. In addition, a chart review and a physical examination were performed. RESULTS: Total hospital stay and total number of operations were significantly lower in the PBF group. Minor flap necrosis (<10%) was observed in 21% of the DSF and 7% of the PBF group, and partial (>10%) or total flap loss occurred in one and three patients from the DSF group, respectively. Patient satisfaction, FAOS results and range of motion were comparable in both groups. Defect aetiology and patient age did not influence surgical outcome. CONCLUSION:Donor-site morbidity and functional outcome after DSF and PBF are comparable. A higher rate of complications was observed in the DSF group. Based on our findings, the PBF is recommended as first-line procedure for reconstruction of small- to medium-sized defects at the distal tibia, fibula, ankle and heel. The sural flap might be chosen for extended skin defects especially when a larger arc of rotation is required.
Authors: G Reiter; B Thomas; C Kühner; G Hundeshagen; F Weil; G Wittenberg; S Kloos; P A Grützner; U Kneser Journal: Chirurg Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 0.955
Authors: Rafael G Jakubietz; Rainer H Meffert; Michael G Jakubietz; Florian Seyfried; Karsten Schmidt Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 1.000