A retrospective evaluation of 182 free flaps in extremity reconstruction and review of the literature

Revisiting Bipedicled Flaps for Lower Extremity Distal Third Defects

BACKGROUND

Lower extremity reconstruction of the distal third of the leg is challenging. Free tissue transfer is the criterion standard. The COVID-19 pandemic encouraged seeking alternatives for resource consuming procedures. Bipedicled flaps are flaps with a dual-source subdermal perfusion. The purpose of this study was to assess outcomes of patients who had bipedicled flaps primary or auxiliary local flap for distal third leg/foot reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients undergoing lower extremity reconstruction (2020-2021) was performed. Inclusion criteria were patients older than 18 years with lower extremity wounds secondary to traumatic injury for which bipedicled flaps were used in the reconstruction. Exclusion criteria included lower extremity wounds secondary to peripheral vascular disease or diabetes.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients were included in the study. All patients had distal third of the leg/foot wounds, and 12 patients (87.5%) had concurrent leg fractures. In 8 patients (57.1%), the bipedicled flap was used to decrease the wound size and facilitate another concurrent flap: hemisoleus (21.4%), anterior tibialis muscle turnover (14.3%), medial plantar artery (14.3%), and posterior tibial artery perforator (14.3%). Mean wound size for bipedicle flaps used alone was 42.0 ± 18.3 cm2, whereas wounds that required a bipedicled flap with an additional flap were 69.9 ± 80.8 cm2 (P = 0.187). Two patients had partial flap necrosis (14.3%) but healed their defect. One patient had nonunion (7.1%). Limb salvage rate was 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Bipedicled flaps can be used as an alternative to free flaps in distal third leg/foot defects in select patients. If distal extremity wounds cannot be covered with a bipedicled flap alone, the flap can be used an accessory flap to facilitate reconstruction with other local flaps.

Lower leg reconstruction after resection of a squamous cell carcinoma on necrobiosis lipoidica with a pedicled fibula and an extended anterolateral thigh flap-a case report

BACKGROUND

Extensive loss of soft tissue and bone due to neoplasia, trauma, or infection in extremities often leads to amputation.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present the case of a 72-year-old female patient presenting with an extended cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the lower leg, developed on top of necrobiosis lipoidica. After achieving the R0 resection, a 26 × 20-cm soft tissue and 15-cm tibial bone defect resulted. The contralateral leg had been lost due to the same disease 18 years before. We achieved a successful reconstruction of the leg using a pedicled fibula transplantation, an extended anterolateral thigh perforator flap, and an internal fixation with plate and screws. Two years after the original surgery, the patient is relapse-free and mobile, with adequate function of the reconstructed foot.

CONCLUSIONS

Our case presented a unique combination of pedicled fibula transplantation and free extended ALT perforator flap to reconstruct an extensive defect after resection of a rare cSCC on top of NL. In selected cases, the boundaries of limb salvage can be pushed far beyond the current standards of treatment.

Predictors of surgical site infection following reconstructive flap surgery: A multi-institutional analysis of 37,177 patients

Purpose

Rates of surgical site infection (SSI) following reconstructive flap surgeries (RFS) vary according to flap recipient site, potentially leading to flap failure. This is the largest study to determine predictors of SSI following RFS across recipient sites.

Methods

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for patients undergoing any flap procedure from years 2005 to 2020. RFS involving grafts, skin flaps, or flaps with unknown recipient site were excluded. Patients were stratified according to recipient site: breast, trunk, head and neck (H&N), upper and lower extremities (UE&LE). The primary outcome was the incidence of SSI within 30 days following surgery. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were performed to determine predictors of SSI following RFS.

Results

37,177 patients underwent RFS, of whom 7.5% (n = 2,776) developed SSI. A significantly greater proportion of patients who underwent LE (n = 318, 10.7%) and trunk (n = 1,091, 10.4%) reconstruction developed SSI compared to those who underwent breast (n = 1,201, 6.3%), UE (n = 32, 4.4%), and H&N (n = 100, 4.2%) reconstruction (p < .001). Longer operating times were significant predictors of SSI following RFS across all sites. The strongest predictors of SSI were presence of open wound following trunk and H&N reconstruction [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.82 (1.57-2.11) and 1.75 (1.57-1.95)], disseminated cancer following LE reconstruction [aOR (CI) 3.58 (2.324-5.53)], and history of cardiovascular accident or stroke following breast reconstruction [aOR (CI) 16.97 (2.72-105.82)].

Conclusion

Longer operating time was a significant predictor of SSI regardless of reconstruction site. Reducing operating times through proper surgical planning might help mitigate the risk of SSI following RFS. Our findings should be used to guide patient selection, counseling, and surgical planning prior to RFS.