| Literature DB >> 33814745 |
Krittika Aggarwal1, Arun K Singh1, Sameer M Halageri1, Vijay Kumar1, Brijesh Mishra1, D N Upadhyay1.
Abstract
Introduction Reconstruction forms the primary tenet in plastic surgery. Venous flaps are a known option but the survival is limited. Arterialization of venous flap can enhance its survival. While various techniques of arterialization of venous flaps are described, there are very few studies comparing them. Material and methods The current study was conducted among 34 rats weighing 160 to 200 grams. The rats were divided into four groups. Group I-islanded epigastric flap was raised with superficial caudal epigastric vessels as pedicle. Group II-arterialized flow through venous flap was raised with superficial caudal epigastric vein (SCEV) as afferent and lateral thoracic vein as drainage vein. Side-to-side anastomosis was done between femoral artery and vein, lateral to the origin of superficial caudal epigastric artery. Group III-after raising the flap, as in group II, femoral vein was ligated proximal to superficial caudal epigastric vessels. Group IV-an arterialized flow through venous flap was raised with superficial caudal epigastric vein as afferent and lateral thoracic vein as drainage vein. End-to-side anastomosis was done between femoral artery and superficial caudal epigastric vein. Animals that died before completion of the study were excluded. The color changes of flaps were noted. Flap survival was expressed as a percentage of the total flap surface area. The patency of anastomosis was seen on postoperative day 5. Results There was no total flap failure. On statical analysis, the flap survival area on day 5 between Group I and Group IV was not significant ( p value 0.431). The survival area in Group I (78.85 ± 10.54%) was comparable to Group IV (65.71 ± 20.70%). Group II and III had poor results as compared with Group I. In four rats, thrombosis of arteriovenous anastomosis was noted with flap survival area of 30 to 33%. Conclusion It was noted that epigastric venous flaps with end-to-side anastomosis between femoral artery and superficial caudal epigastric vein (group IV) have survival area comparable to islanded flaps. Association of Plastic Surgeons of India. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Entities:
Keywords: experimental; reconstruction; venous flap
Year: 2021 PMID: 33814745 PMCID: PMC8012788 DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1725227
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Plast Surg ISSN: 0970-0358
Fig. 1Showing schematic diagram for the study.
Fig. 2Showing assessment of flap survival area.
Time taken for arterialized venous flap
|
| Mean | Standard. deviation | 95% confidence interval for mean | Minimum | Maximum | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower bound | Upper bound | ||||||
| Group I | 9 | 27.7778 | 7.94949 | 21.6673 | 33.8883 | 20.00 | 45.00 |
| Group II | 7 | 154.29 | 26.36737 | 1029.9000 | 178.6715 | 120.00 | 190.00 |
| Group III | 7 | 110.00 | 12.90994 | 98.0603 | 121.9397 | 90.00 | 120.00 |
| Group IV | 7 | 200.00 | 14.14214 | 186.9207 | 213.0793 | 180.00 | 210.00 |
| Total | 30 | 116.67 | 68.68636 | 91.0188 | 142.3146 | 20.00 | 210.00 |
Area of flap survival in postoperative period
|
| Mean | Standard deviation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area of survival, d1 | Group I | 9 | 100 | 0.00000 |
| Group II | 7 | 97.1429 | 7.55929 | |
| Group III | 7 | 97.1429 | 4.87950 | |
| Group IV | 7 | 100 | 0.00000 | |
| Area of survival, d3 | Group I | 9 | 80.0000 | 11.18034 |
| Group II | 7 | 59.7143 | 19.67837 | |
| Group III | 7 | 52.8571 | 14.96026 | |
| Group IV | 7 | 72.8571 | 24.97618 | |
| Area of survival, d5 | Group I | 9 | 78.8889 | 10.54093 |
| Group II | 7 | 49.0000 | 19.92486 | |
| Group III | 7 | 48.5714 | 16.76163 | |
| Group IV | 7 | 65.7143 | 20.70197 |
Comparison of area of flap survival among the groups
| Dependent variable | (a) Group | (b) Group | Mean difference (a–b) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| a The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. | ||||
| Area of survival, d1 | Group I | Group II | 2.85714 | 0.564 |
| Group III | 2.85714 | 0.564 | ||
| Group IV | 0.00000 | 1.000 | ||
| Group II | Group III | 0.00000 | 1.000 | |
| Group IV | –2.85714 | 0.610 | ||
| Group III | Group IV | –2.85714 | 0.610 | |
| Area of survival, d3 | Group I | Group II | 20.28571 | 0.139 |
| Group III | 27.14286 a |
| ||
| Group IV | 7.14286 | 0.859 | ||
| Group II | Group III | 6.85714 | 0.891 | |
| Group IV | –13.14286 | 0.530 | ||
| Group III | Group IV | –20.00000 | 0.186 | |
| Area of survival, d5 | Group I | Group II | 29.88889 a |
|
| Group III | 30.31746 a |
| ||
| Group IV | 13.17460 | 0.431 | ||
| Group II | Group III | 0.42857 | 1.000 | |
| Group IV | –16.71429 | 0.279 | ||
| Group III | Group IV | –17.14286 | 0.259 | |
Fig. 3Showing flap survival area in group I at day 5.
Fig. 4Showing flap survival area of 30% on day 5.
Fig. 5Showing postoperative result in Group III.
Fig. 6Showing postoperative result in Group IV.