Chi Sun Yoon1, Ji Hong Yim2, Min Ho Kim3, Won Ha4, Kyu Nam Kim1. 1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, Korea. 2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 3. Biomedical Research Center, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, Korea. 4. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Dong Kang General Hospital, Ulsan, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gluteal perforator flaps (GPFs) are the most useful for gluteal region pressure sore reconstruction. However, application is difficult if the surrounding area has scar tissue from previous operations or trauma, especially with recurrent sores. We describe the use of modified lumbar artery perforator flaps when GPFs cannot be used. METHODS: Between May 2009 and April 2014, 51 patients underwent gluteal pressure sore reconstructions with gluteal (n = 39) or modified lumbar artery (n = 12) perforator flaps. Patients in the modified lumbar artery perforator group had scar tissue from trauma or previous surgery. In this retrospective review, we analyzed patient age and sex, defect size and location, operative time, follow-up duration, immediate postoperative issues, flap necrosis, dehiscence, re-operation, donor-site morbidity and recurrence. Complications and clinical outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: We found no significant differences in patient demographics, surgical complications or clinical outcomes. There were eight cases of temporary congestion (20.51%) and four of partial flap necrosis (10.25%) in the gluteal perforator group. In the modified lumbar artery perforator group, there were three cases of temporary congestion (25%) and one of partial flap necrosis (8.33%). No pressure sores recurred during follow-up in either group. CONCLUSION: GPFs are the gold standards for gluteal pressure sores, but modified lumbar artery perforator flaps are relatively easy and useful when GPFs cannot be used due to scar tissue.
BACKGROUND: Gluteal perforator flaps (GPFs) are the most useful for gluteal region pressure sore reconstruction. However, application is difficult if the surrounding area has scar tissue from previous operations or trauma, especially with recurrent sores. We describe the use of modified lumbar artery perforator flaps when GPFs cannot be used. METHODS: Between May 2009 and April 2014, 51 patients underwent gluteal pressure sore reconstructions with gluteal (n = 39) or modified lumbar artery (n = 12) perforator flaps. Patients in the modified lumbar artery perforator group had scar tissue from trauma or previous surgery. In this retrospective review, we analyzed patient age and sex, defect size and location, operative time, follow-up duration, immediate postoperative issues, flap necrosis, dehiscence, re-operation, donor-site morbidity and recurrence. Complications and clinical outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: We found no significant differences in patient demographics, surgical complications or clinical outcomes. There were eight cases of temporary congestion (20.51%) and four of partial flap necrosis (10.25%) in the gluteal perforator group. In the modified lumbar artery perforator group, there were three cases of temporary congestion (25%) and one of partial flap necrosis (8.33%). No pressure sores recurred during follow-up in either group. CONCLUSION: GPFs are the gold standards for gluteal pressure sores, but modified lumbar artery perforator flaps are relatively easy and useful when GPFs cannot be used due to scar tissue.