Avoiding complications in microsurgery and strategies for flap take-back

The use of double free flaps with intra-flap anastomosis for complex defects reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Over the years, the improvements in microsurgical field allowed the reconstruction of increasingly larger and more complex defects. In this context, we conceived linking more flaps with a single vascular supply. The double free flaps with intra-flap anastomosis offer a better match with recipient site requirements, still having a minimal donor and recipient site morbidity. In the present paper, we describe our experience with this procedure, focusing on its features and providing a collection of cases in different areas and clinical settings.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive single-center case series with 16 patients who received defect reconstruction using double free flaps with intra-flap anastomosis between February 2019 and August 2021. The median age was 58 years old (range 39-77). Nine patients were men and seven were women. The defects were located throughout the body, including breast, head and neck, lower and upper limbs. In 12 cases, the cause of the defect was surgical removal of a tumor, while in four cases the cause was trauma. The main indication for this procedure was related to the need of covering a large defect, either in terms of volume or surface, resorting to only one vascular axis.

RESULTS

A total of 32 flaps were harvested, including 10 different techniques. The flaps size ranged from 6 × 3 cm to 24 × 8 cm. Eleven patients completely healed without any complications. No flaps were lost. Three patients developed a minor wound dehiscence and one a wound infection treated conservatively with antibiotic therapy. One patient experienced both of these complications. The median follow up was 12 months and ranged between 6 and 24 months. At the final clinical evaluation, the reconstructive result was stable in all cases and all the patients had a complete resumption of their daily activities.

CONCLUSIONS

Double free flaps reconstruction with intra-flap anastomosis represents a valid and reliable option for the coverage of complex defects in case of depleted recipient sites. This procedure allows us to transfer high amounts of tissue resorting to a single vascular axis. However, it represents a technical challenge and a highly experienced microsurgical team is required.

Restoring the perfusion of accidentally transected right gastroepiploic vessels during gastric conduit harvest for esophagectomy using microvascular anastomosis: a case report and literature review

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy remains the standard treatment for esophageal cancer or esophagogastric junction cancer. The stomach, or the gastric conduit, is currently the most commonly used substitute for reconstruction instead of the jejunum or the colon. Preservation of the right gastric and the right gastroepiploic vessels is a vital step to maintain an adequate perfusion of the gastric conduit. Compromise of these vessels, especially the right gastroepiploic artery, might result in ischemia or necrosis of the conduit. Replacement of the gastric conduit with jejunal or colonic interposition is reported when a devastating accident occurs; however, the latter procedure requires a more extensive dissection and multiple anastomosis.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 61-year-old male with a lower third esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (cT3N1 M0) who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation with a partial response. He underwent esophagectomy with a gastric conduit reconstruction. However, the right gastroepiploic artery was accidentally transected during harvesting the gastric conduit, and the complication was identified during the pull-up phase. An end-to-end primary anastomosis was performed by the plastic surgeon under microscopy, and perfusion of the conduit was evaluated by the ICG scope, which revealed adequate vascularization of the whole conduit. We continued the reconstruction with the revascularized gastric conduit according to the perfusion test result. Although the patient developed minor postoperative leakage of the esophagogastrostomy, it was controlled with conservative drainage and antibiotic administration. Computed tomography also demonstrated fully enhanced gastric conduit. The patient resumed oral intake smoothly later without complications and was discharged at postoperative day 43.

CONCLUSION

Although the incidence of vascular compromise during harvesting of the gastric conduit is rare, the risk of conduit ischemia is worrisome whenever it happens. Regarding to our presented case, with the prompt identification of the injury, expertized vascular reconstruction, and a practical intraoperative evaluation of the perfusion, a restored gastric conduit could be applied for reconstruction instead of converting to more complicated procedures.

Surgical treatment of pressure ulcer: various flaps and other surgical methods

Pressure ulcers remain a common health problem, particularly among physically limited or bedridden older adults, and they can cause significant morbidity and mortality. Conservative management is ineffective for stage III or IV pressure ulcers, and surgery to create flap coverage becomes inevitable. Basic surgical principles for the treatment of pressure ulcers include complete excision of the ulcer, surrounding scar, underlying bursa, and soft tissue calcification; radical removal of underlying bone and any heterotropic ossification; padding of bone stumps and filling dead space; resurfacing with large regional pedicled flaps; and grafting the donor site of the flap, if necessary. For effective edge resection, all the flaps should be designed to be as large as possible, placing the suture line away from the area of direct pressure, and the flap design should also not violate adjacent flap territories to preserve all options for coverage if a breakdown or recurrence dictates further reconstruction. There are surgical methods for stage III or IV wide range pressure ulcers: reconstruction surgery using a skin flap, muscle flap, fascia-skin flap, or free flap. The skin graft is not generally recommended as a surgical procedure for stage III or IV pressure ulcers because it cannot provide enough strength to cover the wound. This review presents various surgical treatments of pressure ulcers including muscle, musculocutaneous, perforator-based, and free flap.