These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Versatility of perforator flaps for lower extremity defect coverage: Technical highlights and single center experience with 87 consecutive cases.
    Author: Scaglioni MF, Meroni M, Knobe M, Fritsche E.
    Journal: Microsurgery; 2022 Sep; 42(6):548-556. PubMed ID: 35475523.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Lower extremity defects have been and remain one of the greatest challenges in reconstructive surgery. Perforator flaps have been accepted as a valid procedure to cover such a defect. Different techniques have been described and nowadays many options are available. However, there were not studies that comprehensively review the most modern techniques and clinical application of the use of perforator flaps in the lower extremity reconstruction. In the present report, we gathered most of them, presenting an updated and large case series where different pedicled and free perforators flaps were employed in simple and complex scenarios in a large series of cases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-seven patients presenting soft tissue defects of the lower extremities were treated by means of different perforator-based flaps, in either free or pedicled fashion. The flaps were based on different perforator vessels, namely deep lateral circumflex femoral artery, profunda femoris artery, superficial femoral artery, medial sural artery, peroneal artery, posterior tibial artery, anterior tibial artery, and medial plantar artery. Patients' mean age was 61.9 years old (range 21-87 years old), 58 were males and 29 females. The 12 patients received sequential flaps and 9 received double free flaps, for a total sum of 106 flaps. The causes of the defects were trauma in 41 patients and tumors in 46 patients, located throughout the lower limbs. Size of the defect ranged from 3 cm × 4 cm to 25 cm × 9 cm. RESULTS: The dimensions of the flap skin paddles ranged from 3 cm × 4 cm to 16 cm × 5 cm for the pedicled flaps (42 cases) and from 6 cm × 4 cm to 25 cm × 8 cm for the free ones (45 cases). Mean flap's size was 48 cm2 (range 12-80 cm2 ) for the pedicle flaps and 104 cm2 (range 24-200 cm2 ) for free flaps. In two pedicled cases, a distal congestion was encountered, requiring a second surgery. Debulking procedures were performed in 2 patients. All the patients were successfully treated and no flaps were lost. Mean follow-up period was 8.4 months (range 3-12 months). No range of motion impairment was encountered after surgery and all the patients were able to return to habitual life. CONCLUSIONS: The present case series highlights the reliability and versatility of perforator flaps for lower extremity defect coverage. Following careful consideration of the etiology, dimensions, location, patient comorbidities, and presence of adequate perforators, a pedicled or free perforator flap can be potentially successful in the most disparate circumstances.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]