Cengiz Eser1, Eyüphan Gencel2, Erol Kesiktaş2, Ömer Kokaçya2, Metin Yavuz2. 1. Çukurova University, Medical Faculty, Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, 01330 Saricam, Adana, Turkey. Electronic address: cengizeser01@gmail.com. 2. Çukurova University, Medical Faculty, Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, 01330 Saricam, Adana, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The reconstruction of complex lower leg and foot defects is difficult for plastic surgeons. The distally based sural flap (DBSF) is an option for non-free flap lower leg reconstruction. However, one of the major drawbacks of the DBSF is its aesthetically non-acceptable donor area scarring. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight patients (six men and two women) who had lower leg or foot defects were evaluated in this study. We used an ipsilateral or cross-leg DBSF to repair the defect. A medial or lateral gastrocnemius perforator island flap (average size 8.1 × 6.1 cm) was used to cover the donor area of the DBSF in a two-stage operative procedure. RESULTS: We did not observe any complications with the gastrocnemius perforator island flap. Two patients had local infections under the DBSF and were treated with bacteria-specific antibiotherapy. All patients were followed up for 1 year postoperatively. The donor areas of the distally based sural flaps were aesthetically acceptable. Patients gained ambulatory status during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Reconstruction of the donor area of a DBSF with a gastrocnemius perforator island flap allows for more acceptable aesthetics and functional results than do other reconstructive procedures.
OBJECTIVE: The reconstruction of complex lower leg and foot defects is difficult for plastic surgeons. The distally based sural flap (DBSF) is an option for non-free flap lower leg reconstruction. However, one of the major drawbacks of the DBSF is its aesthetically non-acceptable donor area scarring. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight patients (six men and two women) who had lower leg or foot defects were evaluated in this study. We used an ipsilateral or cross-leg DBSF to repair the defect. A medial or lateral gastrocnemius perforator island flap (average size 8.1 × 6.1 cm) was used to cover the donor area of the DBSF in a two-stage operative procedure. RESULTS: We did not observe any complications with the gastrocnemius perforator island flap. Two patients had local infections under the DBSF and were treated with bacteria-specific antibiotherapy. All patients were followed up for 1 year postoperatively. The donor areas of the distally based sural flaps were aesthetically acceptable. Patients gained ambulatory status during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Reconstruction of the donor area of a DBSF with a gastrocnemius perforator island flap allows for more acceptable aesthetics and functional results than do other reconstructive procedures.