BACKGROUND: Few studies in the recent literature have investigated the reliability of dorsal intercostal artery perforator (DICAP) flap in posterior trunk reconstruction. The purpose of this report is to describe our clinical experience with the use of DICAP flaps in a cohort of oncological patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty patients underwent posterior trunk reconstruction with DICAP based flaps. Patients age ranged from 45 to 76 years. All defects resulted from skin cancer ablation. Defect sizes ranged from 4 × 4 to 6 × 8 cm. The flaps were mobilized in V-Y or propeller fashion. The flaps were islanded on 1 (12 cases), 2 (6 cases), or 3 (2 cases) perforators. Donor sites were always closed primarily. RESULTS: Eleven V-Y advancement flaps were performed; one of these was converted to a perforator-plus peninsular flap design, which retained an additional source of blood supply from the opposite skin bridge. Nine flaps were mobilized in propeller fashion. Flap dimensions ranged from 4 × 6 to 6 × 14 cm. Mean operative time was 70 min. One V-Y flap complicated with marginal necrosis that healed with no need for reintervention. All the other flaps survived uneventfully. No other complications were observed at recipient and donor sites. Follow-up ranged from 3 months to 2 years. All the patients were satisfied with the surgical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: DICAP based flaps proved to be a reliable option to resurface posterior trunk defects following oncological resection, allowing to achieve like-with-like reconstruction with excellent contour and minimal donor-site morbidity.
BACKGROUND: Few studies in the recent literature have investigated the reliability of dorsal intercostal artery perforator (DICAP) flap in posterior trunk reconstruction. The purpose of this report is to describe our clinical experience with the use of DICAP flaps in a cohort of oncological patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty patients underwent posterior trunk reconstruction with DICAP based flaps. Patients age ranged from 45 to 76 years. All defects resulted from skin cancer ablation. Defect sizes ranged from 4 × 4 to 6 × 8 cm. The flaps were mobilized in V-Y or propeller fashion. The flaps were islanded on 1 (12 cases), 2 (6 cases), or 3 (2 cases) perforators. Donor sites were always closed primarily. RESULTS: Eleven V-Y advancement flaps were performed; one of these was converted to a perforator-plus peninsular flap design, which retained an additional source of blood supply from the opposite skin bridge. Nine flaps were mobilized in propeller fashion. Flap dimensions ranged from 4 × 6 to 6 × 14 cm. Mean operative time was 70 min. One V-Y flap complicated with marginal necrosis that healed with no need for reintervention. All the other flaps survived uneventfully. No other complications were observed at recipient and donor sites. Follow-up ranged from 3 months to 2 years. All the patients were satisfied with the surgical outcome. CONCLUSIONS:DICAP based flaps proved to be a reliable option to resurface posterior trunk defects following oncological resection, allowing to achieve like-with-like reconstruction with excellent contour and minimal donor-site morbidity.