| Literature DB >> 31668019 |
Ulrich Rother1, Helena Müller-Mohnssen1, Werner Lang1, Ingo Ludolph2, Andreas Arkudas2, Raymund E Horch2, Susanne Regus1, Alexander Meyer1.
Abstract
Free flaps in combination with arterial reconstruction by means of arteriovenous loops or bypass have, meanwhile, been established as a therapeutic option in defect reconstruction for areas without recipient vessels. Our aim was to analyse the long-term performance, flap autonomy, and the flap perfusion. Patients receiving this combined reconstruction at a single-centre institution were included. During follow-up examination, the patency of arterial reconstruction was investigated by duplex ultrasound. Flap micro-circulation was assessed by laser Doppler flowmetry and white light tissue spectrometry (O2C) as well as by indocyanine green fluorescence angiography. Twenty-three patients could be clinically followed up. Duplex ultrasound showed, in four cases, arterial pedicle occlusion in spite of vital flap. Comparison of the O2C perfusion parameters between flaps with occluded pedicles and those with intact inflow showed no significant difference (parameters sO2: P = .82; Flow: P = .31). Similar results were obtained by fluorescence angiography; no significant difference could be detected between both groups (parameters Ingress P = .13; Ingressrate P = .54). Combined vascular reconstruction with free tissue transfer is associated with a good long-term outcome and wound closure. Even after flap transplantation to areas with critical tissue perfusion, the flap can develop autonomy and thus survive after pedicle occlusion.Entities:
Keywords: arteriovenous loop; flap autonomy; flap perfusion; indocyanine green; laser Doppler
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31668019 PMCID: PMC7949459 DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13239
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Wound J ISSN: 1742-4801 Impact factor: 3.315
Figure 1Angiography 7 days after an infra‐malleolar bypass reconstruction on the posterior tibial artery with end‐to‐side connection of the flap pedicle (radial forearm flap) to bypass graft in a patient with a chronic wound on the medial foot due to critical limb ischaemia
Figure 2One year postoperative control by indocyanine green fluorescence angiography of a radial forearm flap on the medial foot in case of a critical limb ischaemia patient (digital subtraction angiography compare Figure 1). The arterial pedicle showed an occlusion at the follow‐up investigation. Regions of interest: 1: central flap region; 2: proximal; 3: lateral; 4: distal; 5: medial
Figure 3Study flow chart of the patient inclusion
Patients
| Patient | Sex | Age | Flap | Vascular reconstruction | Defect type | Diabetes | Smoker | Arterial pedicle open at follow‐up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Male | 60 | Latissimus dorsi | Bypass | CLI | No | Yes | Yes |
| 2 | Male | 78 | Latissimus dorsi | Bypass | CLI | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 3 | Male | 72 | Radial forearm | Bypass | CLI | Yes | No | No |
| 4 | Female | 63 | Latissimus dorsi | AV‐loop | CLI | No | No | Yes |
| 5 | Male | 64 | Rectus abdominis | AV‐loop | CLI | Yes | No | Yes |
| 6 | Female | 46 | Latissimus dorsi | AV‐loop | Rectal carcinoma | No | No | No |
| 7 | Female | 76 | Rectus abdominis | AV‐loop | Sternal ulcus after irradiation | No | No | Yes |
| 8 | Female | 67 | Rectus abdominis | Bypass | CLI | No | No | Yes |
| 9 | Male | 82 | Rectus abdominis | AV‐loop | Sternal osteomyelitis | No | No | Yes |
| 10 | Male | 60 | Latissimus dorsi | Bypass | CLI | No | Yes | Yes |
| 11 | Male | 64 | Radial forearm | Bypass | CLI | Yes | No | Yes |
| 12 | Male | 75 | Gracilis | Bypass | CLI | No | No | Yes |
| 13 | Male | 71 | Rectus abdominis | AV‐loop | CLI | No | No | Yes |
| 14 | Male | 29 | Gracilis | AV‐loop | CLI | No | No | Yes |
| 15 | Female | 58 | Vastus lateralis | AV‐loop | Sternal osteomyelitis | Yes | No | Yes |
| 16 | Female | 76 | Vastus lateralis | AV‐loop | Sternal ulcus after irradiation | Yes | No | Yes |
| 17 | Female | 67 | Latissimus dorsi | AV‐loop | Sternal ulcus after irradiation | No | No | No |
| 18 | Male | 63 | Latissimus dorsi | AV‐loop | Rectal carcinoma (including irradiation) | No | No | Yes |
| 19 | Male | 66 | Latissimus dorsi | AV‐loop | CLI | No | No | Yes |
| 20 | Male | 74 | Latissimus dorsi | Bypass | CLI | No | No | Yes |
| 21 | Male | 63 | Latissimus dorsi | AV‐loop | Sternal ulcus after irradiation | No | Yes | Yes |
| 22 | Male | 69 | Latissimus dorsi | AV‐loop | Rectal carcinoma (including irradiation) | No | No | Yes |
| 23 | Female | 74 | Radial forearm | Bypass | CLI | Yes | Yes | No |
Abbreviation: CLI, critical limb ischaemia.
Results of the O2C perfusion measurement in the different flap zones compared between the OCCLUDED and OPEN group
| OPEN pedicle | OCCLUDED pedicle | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flap zone | Median (range) | Median (range) |
| |
| sO2 in % | Central | 47.0 (3.0‐70.0) | 52.0 (41.0‐63.0) | .82 |
| Medial | 45.0 (9.0‐92.0) | 62.5 (45.0‐76.0) | .46 | |
| Distal | 46.0 (11.0‐74.0) | 40.0 (33.0‐49.0) | .77 | |
| Lateral | 54.0 (20.0‐79.0) | 54.5 (50.0‐57.0) | 1.00 | |
| Proximal | 46.0 (10.0‐69.0) | 42.0 (29.0‐58.0) | .94 | |
| Flow in A.U. | Central | 157.0 (38.0‐337.0) | 111.0 (26.0‐117.0) | .31 |
| Medial | 187.0 (41.0‐337.0) | 120.0 (41.0‐133.0) | .24 | |
| Distal | 174.0 (51.0‐362.0) | 114.0 (76.0‐171.0) | .34 | |
| Lateral | 154.0 (39.0‐488.0) | 66.0 (38.0‐208.0) | .21 | |
| Proximal | 164.0 (32.0‐359.0) | 68.0 (49.0‐150.0) | .14 |
Results of the indocyanine green fluorescence angiography perfusion measurement in the different flap zones compared between the OCCLUDED and OPEN group
| OPEN pedicle | OCCLUDED pedicle | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flap zone | Median (range) | Median (range) |
| |
| Ingress | Central | 73.0 (48.0‐197.0) | 116.0 (63.0‐147.0) | .07 |
| Medial | 56.5 (15.0‐242.0) | 124.5 (81.0‐150.0) |
| |
| Distal | 60.5 (11.0‐207.0) | 76.0 (47.0‐104.0) | .85 | |
| Lateral | 58.0 (32.0‐218.0) | 112.0 (73.0‐179.0) |
| |
| Proximal | 50.5 (25.0‐206.0) | 99.0 (70.0‐146.0) |
| |
| Ingressrate | Central | 3.6 (0.8‐18.4) | 4.2 (3.6‐5.0) | .67 |
| Medial | 2.4 (0.9‐29.1) | 4.3 (3.3‐4.6) | .3 | |
| Distal | 2.9 (0.6‐20.9) | 2.4 (1.6‐3.1) | .64 | |
| Lateral | 2.1 (1.0‐22.5) | 3.9 (3.4‐4.6) | .17 | |
| Proximal | 1.4 (0.6‐19.6) | 3.4 (2.4‐5.5) | .17 |
Figure 4Comparison of the median values of the indocyanine green fluorescence angiography analysis between AV‐loop and bypass patients (ingress rate units/s)
Figure 5Comparison of the median values of the indocyanine green fluorescence angiography analysis between AV‐loop and bypass patients (ingress units/s)