| Literature DB >> 31456609 |
Shaun D Mendenhall1, Oded Ben-Amotz2, Rikesh A Gandhi3, L Scott Levin3,4.
Abstract
Just as in the craft of carpentry, a stable foundation and framework are absolutely essential to the final function of a building, but no more important than the drywall, trim, and paint that make the building functional, durable, and livable. Reconstruction of the lower extremity is similar; the orthopaedic surgeon must obtain stable fixation of the damaged or diseased bone once a thorough debridement of nonviable bone is performed, while the plastic or orthopaedic soft tissue surgeon must provide vascularized, stable coverage. These two components are complementary and both contribute to the success or failure of functional limb restoration. The stability of bone repair will predict the ultimate functional status, while the vascularized envelope will enhance the biology of bone and soft tissue healing. When both components are properly attended to, the result is often a functional limb with an acceptable appearance. While a single surgeon need not perform both of these tasks (although some may choose to do so), the orthopaedic and plastic surgeon involved in this care must have a clear understanding of each other's role and their importance for a good outcome. This is what we call the orthoplastic approach to reconstructive surgery of the extremities, that is, the application of principles and practice of both specialties applied simultaneously to optimize the outcomes in limb reconstruction. In this review article, we discuss the history of orthoplastic surgery, the key elements of orthoplastic surgery, and thoughts on factors that lead to good outcomes through select cases.Entities:
Keywords: bone reconstruction; limb salvage; open fracture; orthoplastic; reconstructive microsurgery; soft tissue coverage; soft tissue reconstruction
Year: 2019 PMID: 31456609 PMCID: PMC6664840 DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688095
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Plast Surg ISSN: 0970-0358
The Gustilo grading system of open tibial fibular fractures and treatment 12 13
| Gustilo grade | Description | Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Abbreviations: ORIF/EF, open reduction internal fixation or external fixation; STSG, split-thickness skin graft. | ||
| I | Open fracture, with clean wound <1 cm in length | Irrigation, debridement, ORIF/EF, primary closure |
| II | Open fracture, with wound > 1 cm but < 10 cm in length without extensive soft-tissue damage, loss, flaps, or avulsions | Irrigation, debridement, ORIF/EF, primary closure |
| III | Open fracture with extensive soft-tissue lacerations (>10 cm), damage, or loss or an open segmental fracture. Subcategorized as below: | Variable, see below |
| IIIA | Adequate soft tissue coverage of the fractured bone despite extensive soft-tissue laceration or flaps, or high-energy trauma irrespective of wound size | Irrigation, debridement, ORIF/EF, primary closure or sometimes requires STSG or local soft tissue flap coverage |
| IIIB | Extensive soft-tissue injury with periosteal stripping and bone exposure. Usually associated with major contamination | Irrigation, debridement, ORIF/EF, often requires free tissue transfer or local muscle flaps or perforator based flaps |
| IIIC | Open fracture associated with an arterial injury requiring repair, irrespective of degree of soft-tissue injury | Irrigation, debridement, ORIF/EF, vascular repair, often requires free tissue transfer or local muscle flaps or perforator based flaps |
Fig. 1Orthoplastic approach to Gustilo 3C injury in a child. A 8-year-old child with a severe limb-threatening injury after being struck by a car ( A , B ). This required immediate stabilization with an external fixator and revascularization with a reversed saphenous vein graft ( C ). After multiple debridements, conversion to internal fixation and free latissimus myocutaneous flap reconstruction was performed ( D ). Although the patient developed hypertrophic scaring and required revision open reduction internal fixation with bone grafting, he went on to union with an acceptable outcome ( E ).
Fig. 2Raising a free fibula osteocutaneous free flap. Initial skin markings preserving 7 cm of proximal and distal fibula ( A ). In a subfascial plane, skin perforators can be located at the posterior border of the fibula along its distal one-third ( B ). The skin paddle is designed based on the perforators located ( C ). A cuff of muscle is left on the fibula to protect its periosteum ( D ). The flexor hallucis longus is resuspended and the skin is then closed over a drain ( E ).
Fig. 3Raising a medial femoral condyle osteocutaneous free flap. Panel ( A ) shows the preoperative marking of the distal femur, proximal tibia, the medial collateral ligament, and the incision toward the posterior border of the femur. Panel ( B ) shows the vascular anatomy of the medial femoral condyle (MFC) flap including the usual dominant pedicle the descending geniculate artery (DGA) and lifeboat nondominant pedicle the medial superior geniculate artery (MSGA). Panel ( C ) shows the osteocutaneous flap and panel ( D ) shows closure over a drain.
Fig. 4Clinical case of orthoplastic reconstruction of a 15 cm tibial defect after a Gustilo 3A tib/fib fracture ( A ). Ipsilateral free fibula reconstruction was performed for limb salvage ( B ). Panels ( C ) and ( D ) show the immediate postoperative appearance of the leg with a delta external fixator in place. Panel ( E ) shows the immediate postoperative X-ray and panel ( F ) shows the Taylor Spatial Frame that was placed after 6 weeks to allow gradual weight bearing and hypertrophy of the free fibula.
Fig. 5Clinical case of a vascularized free fibula bone graft for a tibial osteosarcoma intercalary allograft reconstruction. A 14-year-old male with a left proximal tibial osteosarcoma on radiograph ( A , B ) and magnetic resonance imaging ( C , D ). Reconstruction was performed using a long locking plate and intercalary allograft with a vascularized free fibula ( E , F ). A 3 months follow-up demonstrated adequate healing with good callus formation at the distal allograft–host bone interface ( G , H ).
Fig. 6Clinical case of a medial femoral condyle free osteocutaneous flap for a tibiotalar fusion. A 76-year-old male with severe tibiotalar post-traumatic arthritis with partial collapse of the talar dome from avascular necrosis as demonstrated on T1 magnetic resonance imaging scan ( A ). Fusion was performed by debriding the avascular necrosis site and placing cannulated screws across the joint, which left a bone defect ( B ). A medial femoral condyle osteocutaneous flap was performed to augment bone healing ( C – F ). Panel ( F ) shows 4 months follow-up with good consolidation of bone at the fusion site and around the bone flap.