BACKGROUND: The lateral arm flap (LAF) represents an attractive option for elbow reconstruction, due to low donor site morbidity and a consistent surgical anatomy. It has been described as reverse-flow and as perforator propeller flap (radial collateral artery perforator [RCAP]). We compared the 2 techniques in terms of immediate- and long-term outcomes, together with functional and aesthetic evaluation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 15 patients, 9 males and 6 females, according to the department prospectively maintained database. Ethiology of the defects and patient comorbidities were listed together with flap and clinical data (operative time, time to healing, hospital stay, etc). Functional outcomes were measured according to Quick Disability of Arm Shoulder and Hand score at the time of the last follow-up. RESULTS: Seven LAF flaps were raised in a reverse-flow fashion, whereas 8 were RCAP flaps. No patients described any major elbow functional limitations, and they were generally satisfied with the aesthetic appearance. When comparing the 2 groups of reconstruction, harvest of RCAP flap resulted significantly faster and patients needed less hospitalization days (*P < 0.05). Aesthetic scores were lower where a cutaneous bridge was left intact during rotation (leading to a dogear), which was always the case in reverse-flow flap. Among complications, a partial RCAP flap necrosis occurred in a highly comorbid patient and required a skin graft coverage, whereas 4 reverse-flow flaps presented distal venous congestion which, in 1 patient, led to a secondary flap procedure. CONCLUSIONS: In our practice, elbow reconstruction using the RCAP flap required less hospital stay and operative time. Being less prone to venous congestion, in presence of sizeable perforators, it should be preferred to the reverse-flow LAF flap.
BACKGROUND: The lateral arm flap (LAF) represents an attractive option for elbow reconstruction, due to low donor site morbidity and a consistent surgical anatomy. It has been described as reverse-flow and as perforator propeller flap (radial collateral artery perforator [RCAP]). We compared the 2 techniques in terms of immediate- and long-term outcomes, together with functional and aesthetic evaluation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 15 patients, 9 males and 6 females, according to the department prospectively maintained database. Ethiology of the defects and patient comorbidities were listed together with flap and clinical data (operative time, time to healing, hospital stay, etc). Functional outcomes were measured according to Quick Disability of Arm Shoulder and Hand score at the time of the last follow-up. RESULTS: Seven LAF flaps were raised in a reverse-flow fashion, whereas 8 were RCAP flaps. No patients described any major elbow functional limitations, and they were generally satisfied with the aesthetic appearance. When comparing the 2 groups of reconstruction, harvest of RCAP flap resulted significantly faster and patients needed less hospitalization days (*P < 0.05). Aesthetic scores were lower where a cutaneous bridge was left intact during rotation (leading to a dogear), which was always the case in reverse-flow flap. Among complications, a partial RCAP flap necrosis occurred in a highly comorbid patient and required a skin graft coverage, whereas 4 reverse-flow flaps presented distal venous congestion which, in 1 patient, led to a secondary flap procedure. CONCLUSIONS: In our practice, elbow reconstruction using the RCAP flap required less hospital stay and operative time. Being less prone to venous congestion, in presence of sizeable perforators, it should be preferred to the reverse-flow LAF flap.