BACKGROUND: Cross-leg free flaps have been described for reconstruction of leg defects in cases of trauma with no suitable recipient vessels in the vicinity of the defect. The pitfalls, however, have not been well documented in the literature. The technique of transfer and the length of time required before pedicle division depend on the nature of the flap and the contact surface. METHODS: Eight cross-leg free flap reconstructions were performed on seven patients between 1986 and 1993. These included three latissimus dorsi muscle flaps, three fibula osteomyocutaneous flaps, one tensor fascia lata myocutaneous flap, and one posterolateral thigh flap. The important technical considerations are outlined. RESULTS: One latissimus dorsi flap failed, whereas the rest of the flaps completely survived. The morbidity of the recipient and donor sites are listed. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the technique offers the possibility of salvaging limbs that are, otherwise, nonreconstructable. It is useful for young patients. When the flap is long, it can function as a nutrient flap for the distal limb even though the pedicle has been divided. It is a backup procedure in an urgent situation of re-exploration in which reestablishment of circulation should take place as soon as possible.
BACKGROUND: Cross-leg free flaps have been described for reconstruction of leg defects in cases of trauma with no suitable recipient vessels in the vicinity of the defect. The pitfalls, however, have not been well documented in the literature. The technique of transfer and the length of time required before pedicle division depend on the nature of the flap and the contact surface. METHODS: Eight cross-leg free flap reconstructions were performed on seven patients between 1986 and 1993. These included three latissimus dorsi muscle flaps, three fibula osteomyocutaneous flaps, one tensor fascia lata myocutaneous flap, and one posterolateral thigh flap. The important technical considerations are outlined. RESULTS: One latissimus dorsi flap failed, whereas the rest of the flaps completely survived. The morbidity of the recipient and donor sites are listed. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the technique offers the possibility of salvaging limbs that are, otherwise, nonreconstructable. It is useful for young patients. When the flap is long, it can function as a nutrient flap for the distal limb even though the pedicle has been divided. It is a backup procedure in an urgent situation of re-exploration in which reestablishment of circulation should take place as soon as possible.