The two-stage free flap strategy: An alternative to reconstruct major oncological surgical defects with noble organ exposure

BACKGROUND

To minimize the risk of viscera exposure for parietal or calverial reconstruction after tumor removal, we used the two-stage free flap strategy. The flap was transferred a few days before tumor resection and left in a standby position until the second stage.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

We conducted a retrospective monocentric study. All patients who underwent reconstruction with the two-stage free flap strategy after tumor resection since 2000 were included.

RESULTS

We performed 14 two-stage flaps (8 for calvaria, 3 for abdomen, and 3 for thorax) on 12 patients. The average skin paddle surface was 318 cm². The mean operative time was 274min for the first stage and 172min for the second stage. The average time between the two stages was 8.8 days (2 to 24 days). One flap necrosis, one venous thrombosis, and one hematoma were observed after the first stage. Partial skin paddle necrosis (2 flaps) and infections (3 flaps) occurred after the second stage. The mean follow-up was 20 months (6 to 61 months), and two patients had tumor recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

The two-stage free flap strategy is another option for major oncological reconstructions, to be safe and reliable some rules must be followed. The flap must contain a large skin paddle to ensure flap autonomization and to allow for complete tight plication of the flap between the two stages, which limits germ colonization. A short delay between the two stages (<12 days) decreases the risk of infection. The presence of a plastic surgeon during the second stage decreases the risk of pedicle trauma.

[Surgical treatment of recurrent pressure ulcers in spinal cord injured patients]

Not to burn one's bridges. This is the basic principle that comes immediately to the mind of the plastic surgeon when one brings up the secondary surgery of pressure ulcers, which is a common pathology in the spinal cord injured patients. Which ones are good candidates for surgical treatment? When? What preoperative, infectious, rehabilitative management is most likely to minimize the number of failures and recurrences? Which operative technique to prefer in first intention? And in case of secondary surgery, how to choose the best strategy? We will see that some cases can be treated by primarily closing or flap remobilization but, in case of greater loss of substance the realization of a flap from another anatomical region will be essential.

[To harvest a SIEA flap instead of a DIEP flap in breast reconstruction: A technical note]

Breast reconstruction by abdominal flap has evolved to ensure minimal donor-site morbidity with the description of Deep Inferior Epigastric artery Perforator flap (DIEP flap). Being of the same thickness and the same surface, the Superficial Inferior Epigastric Artery flap (SIEA flap) does not require, for it harvesting, to open the abdominal fascia or to dissect through the muscles minimizing again donor-site sequelae. However, it is little used because of the variability of its vascularization and a higher failure rate than the DIEP in the literature. We believe that it is reasonable, in some cases, to harvest a SIEA flap instead of DIEP flap in mammary reconstruction. We present a technical note explaining our operative strategy for reliably taking a SIEA when the caliber of the vessels allows.