Literature DB >> 32184012

Reverse neurocutaneous vs propeller perforator flaps in diabetic foot reconstruction.

Efterpi Demiri1, Antonios Tsimponis2, Leonidas Pavlidis2, Georgia-Alexandra Spyropoulou2, Periclis Foroglou2, Dimitrios Dionyssiou2.   

Abstract

Introduction Reverse neurocutaneous and propeller perforator flaps are both used to reconstruct diabetic distal lower limb defects. Our study aims to compare outcomes between these two groups of flaps with an emphasis on indications and complication rates. Method A retrospective analysis was conducted, reviewing data from 54 diabetic patients who underwent reconstruction of acute or chronic wounds of the foot and ankle between 2005-2018. Thirty-four patients (Group A) had a reverse neurocutaneous flap (NCF): nineteen sural and fifteen lateral supramalleolar flaps. Twenty patients (Group B) had a propeller flap (PF) based on peroneal (n = 13) or posterior tibial artery perforators (n = 7). All patients had a preoperative Doppler examination to identify the nutrient artery of the flap. In both groups, we recorded patients' demographics, characteristics of the defect, postoperative complications and time to heal. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 59 months. Student's t-test and chi-squared test were used for statistical analysis. Results Mean patients' age was 59.1 and 50.8 years for Group A and B, respectively. Defects were located at the Achilles zone (n = 16), posterior heel (n = 14), foot dorsum (n = 9), lateral and medial malleolar areas (n = 8), anterior ankle (n = 5) and lateral foot (n = 2). Mean size of the defect was 42.8 cm2 in Group A and 23 cm2 in Group B. Uneventful healing was recorded in 20/34 neurocutaneous flaps and in 12/20 propeller flaps; complications included two complete flap losses (one NCF, one PF), seventeen distal flap necroses (10 NCFs, 7 PFs), fifteen delayed wound healing events over the donor or recipient site (12 NCFs, 3 PFs). Secondary surgeries were required in 15 NCF and 8 PF patients. Mean healing time was 48.1 and 40.7 days for Group A and B, respectively. All patients, except one NCF case, which resulted in leg amputation, returned to previous levels of ambulation. Conclusion Reverse neurocutaneous and propeller flaps may provide stable reconstruction of diabetic lower limb defects; neurocutaneous flaps are specially indicated for larger and more distally located defects, although they might be associated with longer healing time and additional revision surgeries. Propeller flaps were more frequently used in younger patients for smaller and more proximally located defects.
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diabetic foot; Propeller flaps; Reverse neurocutaneous flaps; Skin defects

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32184012     DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2020.03.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Injury        ISSN: 0020-1383            Impact factor:   2.586


  3 in total

1.  Efficacy of two different types of island flaps for the repair of diabetic foot ulcers on the heel.

Authors:  Kailong Zhou; Zhenhua Zhu; Zhicheng Zuo; Jiaju Zhao
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2022-03

2.  Comparative Analysis of the Treatment of Skin Lesions of the Lower Limbs with Sural Flap versus Propeller Flap.

Authors:  Katherine V Tenezaca; Gustavo Bersani Silva; Raquel Bernardelli Iamaguchi; Marcelo Rosa de Rezende; Teng Hsiang Wei; Álvaro B Cho
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2022-02-09

3.  Application of the distally based sural neurocutaneous flaps in the management of foot and ankle defects in patients with diabetic foot.

Authors:  Jiezhi Dai; Yu Zhou; Shasha Mei; Hua Chen
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-09-23       Impact factor: 6.055

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.