Wael Mohamed Ayad, Mohamed Osama Ouf, Tarek Zayid, Ahmed I Rashed
{"title":"Free Parascapular Flap Versus Free Superficial Circumflex Iliac Artery Perforator Flaps in Upper Limb Reconstruction.","authors":"Wael Mohamed Ayad, Mohamed Osama Ouf, Tarek Zayid, Ahmed I Rashed","doi":"10.1097/GOX.0000000000007202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Upper limb tissue reconstruction poses significant challenges in achieving stable coverage and functional restoration. This study evaluated the efficacy of the free parascapular (PS) flap and the free superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator (SCIP) flap for upper extremity defect reconstruction, comparing their unique characteristics, aesthetic outcomes, and complications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective clinical trial was conducted at a tertiary care hospital between February 2023 and February 2025, involving 20 patients who were divided into 2 groups: 10 received PS flaps (group A) and 10 received SCIP flaps (group B). Data on flap characteristics, operative time, donor-site morbidity, and aesthetic outcomes were collected and analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Group A flaps exhibited significantly greater flap lengths (18.4 ± 6.9 versus 9.2 ± 3.2 cm), pedicle lengths (8.6 ± 1.6 versus 5.64 ± 0.82 cm), and pedicle diameters (3.19 ± 1.02 versus 0.77 ± 0.2 mm) (<i>P</i> < 0.001). SCIP flaps offered logistical advantages, including supine positioning and consistent use of a 2-team approach (100% versus 50%, <i>P</i> = 0.03), with shorter operative times (334.3 ± 40.03 versus 413.6 ± 85.3 min, <i>P</i> = 0.01). Aesthetic outcomes were comparable. Complications were infrequent, with 1 total flap loss in group A and partial necrosis in group B.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both PS and SCIP flaps are reliable options for upper limb reconstruction. PS flaps offer larger pedicle dimensions, whereas SCIP flaps enable shorter operative times and concealed donor sites.</p>","PeriodicalId":20149,"journal":{"name":"Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open","volume":"13 10","pages":"e7202"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12487911/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000007202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Upper limb tissue reconstruction poses significant challenges in achieving stable coverage and functional restoration. This study evaluated the efficacy of the free parascapular (PS) flap and the free superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator (SCIP) flap for upper extremity defect reconstruction, comparing their unique characteristics, aesthetic outcomes, and complications.
Methods: A prospective clinical trial was conducted at a tertiary care hospital between February 2023 and February 2025, involving 20 patients who were divided into 2 groups: 10 received PS flaps (group A) and 10 received SCIP flaps (group B). Data on flap characteristics, operative time, donor-site morbidity, and aesthetic outcomes were collected and analyzed.
Results: Group A flaps exhibited significantly greater flap lengths (18.4 ± 6.9 versus 9.2 ± 3.2 cm), pedicle lengths (8.6 ± 1.6 versus 5.64 ± 0.82 cm), and pedicle diameters (3.19 ± 1.02 versus 0.77 ± 0.2 mm) (P < 0.001). SCIP flaps offered logistical advantages, including supine positioning and consistent use of a 2-team approach (100% versus 50%, P = 0.03), with shorter operative times (334.3 ± 40.03 versus 413.6 ± 85.3 min, P = 0.01). Aesthetic outcomes were comparable. Complications were infrequent, with 1 total flap loss in group A and partial necrosis in group B.
Conclusions: Both PS and SCIP flaps are reliable options for upper limb reconstruction. PS flaps offer larger pedicle dimensions, whereas SCIP flaps enable shorter operative times and concealed donor sites.
期刊介绍：
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open is an open access, peer reviewed, international journal focusing on global plastic and reconstructive surgery.Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open publishes on all areas of plastic and reconstructive surgery, including basic science/experimental studies pertinent to the field and also clinical articles on such topics as: breast reconstruction, head and neck surgery, pediatric and craniofacial surgery, hand and microsurgery, wound healing, and cosmetic and aesthetic surgery. Clinical studies, experimental articles, ideas and innovations, and techniques and case reports are all welcome article types. Manuscript submission is open to all surgeons, researchers, and other health care providers world-wide who wish to communicate their research results on topics related to plastic and reconstructive surgery. Furthermore, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open, a complimentary journal to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, provides an open access venue for the publication of those research studies sponsored by private and public funding agencies that require open access publication of study results. Its mission is to disseminate high quality, peer reviewed research in plastic and reconstructive surgery to the widest possible global audience, through an open access platform. As an open access journal, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open offers its content for free to any viewer. Authors of articles retain their copyright to the materials published. Additionally, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open provides rapid review and publication of accepted papers.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
