BACKGROUND: Microsurgical lower extremity reconstruction remains a challenge. The use of perforator flaps in lower extremity reconstruction is expanding. The authors present an algorithm to guide in the selection of the ideal free perforator flap that can be tailored to each lower extremity defect. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of lower extremity reconstruction using free perforator flaps over a 7-year period. Demographics, comorbidities, defect characteristics, operative details, complications, and secondary procedures were documented. Pairwise comparisons of flap types were performed to differentiate flaps on the basis of flap size, thickness, and pedicle length. RESULTS: A total of 563 free perforator flaps were performed. The most common causes were trauma (36.5 percent) and diabetes (24.4 percent). Nine flaps were used, with the most common being superficial circumflex iliac perforator (51.2 percent) and anterolateral thigh (33.2 percent). Size differed significantly between flap types (p < 0.05), with the exception of thoracodorsal artery perforator versus gluteal artery perforator flaps (p = 0.26). The thinnest flaps were posterior interosseous artery perforator (3.7 ± 0.5 mm) and superficial circumflex iliac perforator (5.4 ± 0.8 mm). The thickest flaps were deep inferior epigastric perforator (11.1 ± 3.9 mm) and anterolateral thigh (9.0 ± 1.5 mm). The shortest pedicles were in posterior interosseous artery perforator (3.3 ± 0.3 cm) and superficial circumflex iliac perforator flaps (5.2 ± 0.8 cm). The longest pedicles were in deep inferior epigastric perforator (11.7 ± 1.4 cm), thoracodorsal artery perforator (9.3 ± 1.4 cm), and anterolateral thigh flaps (9.2 ± 0.8 cm). CONCLUSIONS: Free perforator flaps are reliable in lower extremity reconstruction. The authors believe their algorithm for flap selection helps to optimize form and function, decrease operative time, and minimize donor-site morbidity and secondary procedures. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.
BACKGROUND: Microsurgical lower extremity reconstruction remains a challenge. The use of perforator flaps in lower extremity reconstruction is expanding. The authors present an algorithm to guide in the selection of the ideal free perforator flap that can be tailored to each lower extremity defect. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of lower extremity reconstruction using free perforator flaps over a 7-year period. Demographics, comorbidities, defect characteristics, operative details, complications, and secondary procedures were documented. Pairwise comparisons of flap types were performed to differentiate flaps on the basis of flap size, thickness, and pedicle length. RESULTS: A total of 563 free perforator flaps were performed. The most common causes were trauma (36.5 percent) and diabetes (24.4 percent). Nine flaps were used, with the most common being superficial circumflex iliac perforator (51.2 percent) and anterolateral thigh (33.2 percent). Size differed significantly between flap types (p < 0.05), with the exception of thoracodorsal artery perforator versus gluteal artery perforator flaps (p = 0.26). The thinnest flaps were posterior interosseous artery perforator (3.7 ± 0.5 mm) and superficial circumflex iliac perforator (5.4 ± 0.8 mm). The thickest flaps were deep inferior epigastric perforator (11.1 ± 3.9 mm) and anterolateral thigh (9.0 ± 1.5 mm). The shortest pedicles were in posterior interosseous artery perforator (3.3 ± 0.3 cm) and superficial circumflex iliac perforator flaps (5.2 ± 0.8 cm). The longest pedicles were in deep inferior epigastric perforator (11.7 ± 1.4 cm), thoracodorsal artery perforator (9.3 ± 1.4 cm), and anterolateral thigh flaps (9.2 ± 0.8 cm). CONCLUSIONS: Free perforator flaps are reliable in lower extremity reconstruction. The authors believe their algorithm for flap selection helps to optimize form and function, decrease operative time, and minimize donor-site morbidity and secondary procedures. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.
Authors: Grant A Murphy; Rajinder P Singh-Moon; Vincent L Rowe; Ketan M Patel; Amaan Mazhar; David J Cuccia; David G Armstrong Journal: J Surg Case Rep Date: 2021-03-22
Authors: Matteo Scampa; Vladimir Mégevand; Domizio Suva; Daniel F Kalbermatten; Carlo M Oranges Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-25 Impact factor: 4.964