| Literature DB >> 30593763 |
Wanzhong Chu1, Shidong Liu2, Yeben Wang2, Jianmin Li1, Huashui Liu2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Treating acute injury of the heel fat pad is different from treating common soft tissue damage. Due to the paucity of literature on the topic, we described our initial experience treating acute injury of the heel fat pad to determine the ideal treatment method. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 53 patients with acute injury of the heel fat pad admitted to our hospital were selected for the study and were randomly divided into 2 groups: the compressed fixation combined with vacuum-assisted closure group and the only reimplanted and sewn group. Twenty-seven of the heel fat pads were compressed and fixed using a flat, hard piece of plastic and hollow screws; then, they were covered with a vacuum-assisted closure device. The other 27 were only sewn without tension. The clinical results were evaluated according to the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society hindfoot score and the British Medical Research Council function evaluation criteria RESULTS In the compressed fixation combined with vacuum-assisted closure group, flaps of 12 feet with retrograde avulsion injury survived successfully. Partial flap necrosis occurred in 8 feet. Seven feet underwent repair using the neurocutaneous vascular resupinated island flap. Results were excellent or good for 74% of patients according to the AOFS. However, in the only reimplanted and sewn group, results were excellent or good for 44% of patients according to the AOFS. CONCLUSIONS Compressed fixation with vacuum-assisted closure is effective for treating acute injury of the heel fat pad, with high success rates and good utility.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30593763 PMCID: PMC6322366 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.910440
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Preoperative patient characteristics.
| Characteristic | Fixation and vacuum-assisted group (n=27 feet in 26 patients) | Only reimplanted and sewn group (n=27 feet in 27 patients) | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y) | 36.1±9.90 | 36.4±8.60 | .907 |
| Sex | |||
| Male | 21 (80.77) | 23 (85.19) | .669 |
| Female | 5 (19.23) | 4 (14.81) | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.36±2.25 | 22.17±2.76 | .092 |
| Classification | |||
| Retrograde avulsion injury | 14 (51.85) | 13 (48.15) | |
| Roll-off injury | 6 (22.22) | 7 (25.93) | |
| Falling injury | 5 (18.52) | 4 (14.81) | |
| Crush-related injury | 2 (7.41) | 3 (11.11) | |
| Interval from injury to surgery (h) | 3.20±3.17 | 3.50±3.05 | .725 |
Data presented as n (%) or mean ± standard deviation. Data presented as number of feet (%).
Figure 1(A) Retrograde avulsion injury. (B) Reimplantation and compressed fixation. (C) Hard plastic and hollow nails. (D) Complete flap survival.
Figure 2(A) Falling injury. (B) Reimplantation and fixation. (C) Vacuum-assisted closure device. (D) Partial necrosis. (E) Full-thickness skin graft.
Figure 3(A) Roll-off injury. (B) Extensive necrosis. (C) Exposure of the calcaneus. (D) Flap repair.
Postoperative patient data.
| Characteristic | Fixation and vacuum-assisted group (n=27 feet in 26 patients) | Only reimplanted and sewn group (n=27 feet in 27 patients) | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flap survival status | .046 | ||
| Survived the initial repair period | 12 (44.44) | 8 (29.63) | |
| Partial necrosis | 8 (29.63) | 5 (18.52) | |
| Extensive necrosis | 7 (25.93) | 14 (51.85) | |
| Hospitalization (days) | 18.2±2.17 | 21.3±4.36 | .002 |
| The AOFAS ankle-hind foot scale outcome | .046 | ||
| Excellent | 14 (51.85) | 8 (33.33) | |
| Good | 6 (22.22) | 5 (14.82) | |
| Poor | 7 (25.93) | 14 (51.85) | |
| The Maryland hindfoot score outcome | .024 | ||
| Excellent | 15 (55.56) | 8 (29.63) | |
| Good | 6 (22.22) | 5 (18.52) | |
| Poor | 6 (22.22) | 14 (51.85) |
Data presented as n (%) or mean ± standard deviation. Data presented as number of feet (%).