| Literature DB >> 26848448 |
Hyung Su Kim1, Dong Chul Lee1, Jin Soo Kim1, Si Young Roh1, Kyung Jin Lee1, Jae Won Yang2, Sae Hwi Ki3, Aram Harijan4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this study, we characterize the morbidity at the donor-site of partial second toe pulp free flaps in terms of wound management as well as long-term outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: Free tissue flaps; Morbidity; Transplant donor site
Year: 2016 PMID: 26848448 PMCID: PMC4738131 DOI: 10.5999/aps.2016.43.1.66
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Plast Surg ISSN: 2234-6163
Measurements and records
| Measurements | Records |
|---|---|
| Early complications | |
| Infection | Present/absent |
| Skin necrosis | Present/absent |
| Wound dehiscence | Present/absent |
| Hematoma | Present/absent |
| Long-term assessment | |
| Sensory disturbance | Normal/diminished light touch/diminished protective sensation/loss of protective sensation |
| Nail deformity | Present/Absent |
| Pain | Present/Absent |
| Intensity self-evaluated on 11-point NRS | |
| Nature/associated situation/degree of effect on daily activity | |
| Gait | Normal/abnormal |
| Abnormality during daily activity | Present/absent |
| Abnormality while working | Present/absent |
| Appearance | Good/acceptable/poor |
NRS, numerical rating scale (from 0, no pain; to 10, worst pain imaginable).
Questionnaire
| 1. Do you feel abnormal pain at the operation site of the toe? |
| 2. Does the pain come with specific activities or situations? |
| 2-1. What specific activities or situations are involved? |
| → Walking, running, ascending stairs, standing for a long time, working |
| 3. Can you score your pain of the toe that underwent the operation? |
| 0 = no pain at all |
| 10 = worst pain imaginable |
| 4. How would you explain the pain? |
| 5. Does your pain have any of features listed below? |
| → Burning, painful cold, electric shocks |
| 6. Is the pain associated with one or more of following symptoms in the same area? |
| → Tingling, pins and needles, numbness, itching |
| 7. How does the pain affect your daily activities? |
| → No, somewhat, to a large extent |
| 8. Have you taken a pain killer because of the pain? |
| 9. Are you unable to walk or need a cane while walking? |
| 10. Since the operation, have you had any abnormality of the toe while performing daily activities? |
| 11. Since the operation, have you had any abnormality of the toe at your work-place? |
| 12. How satisfied are you with the appearance of your toe now? |
| → Good, acceptable, poor |
Fig. 1Harvest of toe pulp free flap
Surgical technique of flap harvest from left second toe. (A) Design of the flap. (B) The subcutaneous vein entering the flap is identified at the base of the flap. (C) With flap dissection by separating vertical fibers, the digital artery is exposed along the medial side of the flap. (D) The flap including the neurovascular pedicle is isolated. (E) The harvested flap. (F) The donor site is closed primarily.
Fig. 2Coronal section of harvested flap
We have usually performed flap elevation of no more than 50% of the arc of toe pulp as assessed coronally. The flap harvest sometimes necessitated taking up to 60% of the toe pulp arc, over the midline of the arc.
Patient data and early donor site complications
| Criteria | Value |
|---|---|
| No. of patients | 246 |
| Mean age (yr) | 41.2 |
| Sex (male:female ratio) | 204:42 |
| Mean flap width (cm) | 1.5 |
| Mean flap length (cm) | 2.5 |
| Smoking:non-smoking | 114:132 |
| Diabetes | 8 |
| Hypertension | 23 |
| Early donor site complications | |
| Infection | 0 |
| Skin necrosis | 0 |
| Wound dehiscence | 8 |
| Hematoma | 5 |
Patient data of long-term donor site assessment
| Criteria | Value |
|---|---|
| No. of patients | 54 |
| Mean age (yr) | 41.7 |
| Mean follow-up period (mo) | 32.4 |
| Sex (male:female ratio) | 43:11 |
| Smoking:non-smoking | 21:33 |
| Diabetes | 2 |
| Hypertension | 6 |
| Percentage of harvested flap from the entire toe pulp | |
| Minimum (%) | 30 |
| Maximum (%) | 60 |
| Average (%) | 44.3 |
| Mean flap width (cm) | 1.4 |
| Mean flap length (cm) | 2.5 |
Long-term assessment of donor site
| Assessment criteria | No. (%) |
|---|---|
| Pain | 15 (27.8) |
| Average NRS score | 2.9 |
| Neuropathic feature | 0 |
| Degree of effect on daily activity | |
| No effect | 9 |
| Somewhat | 6 |
| To a large extent | 0 |
| Pain medication | 0 |
| Sensory disturbance | 3 (5.6) |
| Diminished light touch | 1 |
| Diminished protective sensation | 2 |
| Loss of protective sensation | 0 |
| Nail deformity | 0 |
| Gait disturbance | 0 |
| Appearance | |
| Good | 38 (70.4) |
| Acceptable | 13 (24.1) |
| Poor | 3 (5.5) |
NRS, numerical rating scale (from 0, no pain; to 10, worst pain imaginable).
Fig. 3Donor-site appearance
(A, B) Donor-site appearance 29 months after surgery.