Optimizing Lower Extremity Local Flap Reconstruction in Peripheral Vascular Disease.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Karen R Li, Rachel N Rohrich, Christian X Lava, Cameron M Akbari, Christopher E Attinger
{"title":"Optimizing Lower Extremity Local Flap Reconstruction in Peripheral Vascular Disease.","authors":"Karen R Li, Rachel N Rohrich, Christian X Lava, Cameron M Akbari, Christopher E Attinger","doi":"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Local flaps remain a valuable reconstructive tool as a means for limb salvage for patients with advanced arterial disease. Our single-center, retrospective cohort study aims to compare the outcomes of different patterns of blood flow affected by vascular disease to pedicles in local flap reconstruction of the foot and ankle.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review of 92 patients and 103 flaps was performed. On angiograms, pattern of blood flow to the flap pedicle was determined to be direct inline flow (DF) or indirect flow (IF). Patterns of IF were either by arterial-arterial connections (AC) or unnamed randomized collaterals (RC). Primary outcomes were immediate flap success and limb salvage. Comparative analyses were performed using the χ2 and Fisher tests for categorical variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among all flaps, 73.8% (n = 76/103) had DF and 26.2% (n = 27/103) had IF. Both groups experienced similar rates of immediate flap success (DF = 97.3% vs IF = 92.6%, P = 0.281) and limb salvage (DF = 75.% vs IF = 66.7%, P = 0.403). However, the rate of contralateral amputation was significantly higher in the IF group (26.9% vs 5.3%, P = 0.006). When comparing the 3 distinct patterns of blood flow (DF vs AC vs RC), pedicled flaps were more commonly supplied by DF and AC, while random pattern flaps were more commonly supplied by RC (P = 0.042).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Alternative routes of revascularization can maintain local flap viability and achieve similar rates of limb salvage but risks contralateral amputation. We found that pedicled and local muscle flaps require inline blood flow or blood supply by ACs. Meanwhile, random pattern flap can be supported by random collaterals.</p>","PeriodicalId":8060,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004105","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Local flaps remain a valuable reconstructive tool as a means for limb salvage for patients with advanced arterial disease. Our single-center, retrospective cohort study aims to compare the outcomes of different patterns of blood flow affected by vascular disease to pedicles in local flap reconstruction of the foot and ankle.

Methods: A retrospective review of 92 patients and 103 flaps was performed. On angiograms, pattern of blood flow to the flap pedicle was determined to be direct inline flow (DF) or indirect flow (IF). Patterns of IF were either by arterial-arterial connections (AC) or unnamed randomized collaterals (RC). Primary outcomes were immediate flap success and limb salvage. Comparative analyses were performed using the χ2 and Fisher tests for categorical variables.

Results: Among all flaps, 73.8% (n = 76/103) had DF and 26.2% (n = 27/103) had IF. Both groups experienced similar rates of immediate flap success (DF = 97.3% vs IF = 92.6%, P = 0.281) and limb salvage (DF = 75.% vs IF = 66.7%, P = 0.403). However, the rate of contralateral amputation was significantly higher in the IF group (26.9% vs 5.3%, P = 0.006). When comparing the 3 distinct patterns of blood flow (DF vs AC vs RC), pedicled flaps were more commonly supplied by DF and AC, while random pattern flaps were more commonly supplied by RC (P = 0.042).

Conclusions: Alternative routes of revascularization can maintain local flap viability and achieve similar rates of limb salvage but risks contralateral amputation. We found that pedicled and local muscle flaps require inline blood flow or blood supply by ACs. Meanwhile, random pattern flap can be supported by random collaterals.

优化外周血管疾病的下肢局部皮瓣重建。
背景:对于晚期动脉疾病患者来说,局部皮瓣仍是一种宝贵的肢体重建工具。我们的单中心回顾性队列研究旨在比较在足踝局部皮瓣重建中,受血管疾病影响的血流流向蒂的不同模式的结果:方法:对92名患者和103个皮瓣进行了回顾性研究。在血管造影中,皮瓣蒂的血流模式被确定为直接内流(DF)或间接内流(IF)。间接血流的模式为动脉-动脉连接(AC)或未命名的随机袢(RC)。主要结果是皮瓣的即刻成功率和肢体挽救率。采用χ2检验和费雪检验对分类变量进行比较分析:在所有皮瓣中,73.8%(n = 76/103)有DF,26.2%(n = 27/103)有IF。两组的即刻皮瓣成功率(DF = 97.3% vs IF = 92.6%,P = 0.281)和肢体挽救率(DF = 75.% vs IF = 66.7%,P = 0.403)相似。然而,IF 组的对侧截肢率明显更高(26.9% vs 5.3%,P = 0.006)。在比较三种不同的血流模式(DF vs AC vs RC)时,有蒂皮瓣更常由DF和AC供应,而随机模式皮瓣更常由RC供应(P = 0.042):结论:其他血管再通途径可维持局部皮瓣的存活率,达到相似的肢体挽救率,但存在对侧截肢的风险。我们发现,带蒂皮瓣和局部肌皮瓣需要内联血流或AC供血。同时,随机模式皮瓣可由随机副瓣支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
584
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The only independent journal devoted to general plastic and reconstructive surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery serves as a forum for current scientific and clinical advances in the field and a sounding board for ideas and perspectives on its future. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original articles, brief communications, case reports, and notes in all areas of interest to the practicing plastic surgeon. There are also historical and current reviews, descriptions of surgical technique, and lively editorials and letters to the editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信