Lateral supramalleolar flap: Is it based on perforator of peroneal / anterior tibial artery; A cross-sectional study at tertiary care centre.
Foot, and ankle
Peroneal artery perforator
Soft tissue defect
Supramalleolar flap
Journal
Annals of medicine and surgery (2012)
ISSN: 2049-0801
Titre abrégé: Ann Med Surg (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101616869
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2021
Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
24
09
2021
accepted:
03
10
2021
entrez:
10
11
2021
pubmed:
11
11
2021
medline:
11
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To determine the anatomical basis of supramalleolar flap; retrograde versus antegrade and its clinical outcome based on the vascular pattern. This analytic cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. Patients who underwent coverage of soft tissue defects around the foot and ankle with supramalleolar flaps were included. Data collection was through medical records including demographic parameters, mechanism of injury, per-operative findings of perforator origin, and patient interviewing for final assessment. Patients with peripheral vascular disease, unavailability of skin, and radiation injuries were excluded. All analysis was done using SPSS version 25.0. 49 patients were included in the study from May 1999 to December 2020. The male to female ratio was 37:12. The cause of soft tissue defects was trauma in 9 (38.7%) followed by Infection in 16 (32.6%) and Blast injury in 5 cases (10.2%). The maximum flap size harvested was 20 × 8 cm. In 19 cases the peroneal artery perforator was absent and the flap was based on the perforator of an anterolateral malleolar branch (antegrade) while the remaining 30 flaps were based on the perforator of the peroneal artery (retrograde The lateral supramalleolar flap provided coverage to almost all regions of the foot and ankle with a cosmetically acceptable donor and recipient site. There were no problems with shoe wear, as only 2 patients required defatting for cosmetic reasons. Microvascular expertise was required for a predictable outcome.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To determine the anatomical basis of supramalleolar flap; retrograde versus antegrade and its clinical outcome based on the vascular pattern.
METHODS
METHODS
This analytic cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. Patients who underwent coverage of soft tissue defects around the foot and ankle with supramalleolar flaps were included. Data collection was through medical records including demographic parameters, mechanism of injury, per-operative findings of perforator origin, and patient interviewing for final assessment. Patients with peripheral vascular disease, unavailability of skin, and radiation injuries were excluded. All analysis was done using SPSS version 25.0.
RESULTS
RESULTS
49 patients were included in the study from May 1999 to December 2020. The male to female ratio was 37:12. The cause of soft tissue defects was trauma in 9 (38.7%) followed by Infection in 16 (32.6%) and Blast injury in 5 cases (10.2%). The maximum flap size harvested was 20 × 8 cm. In 19 cases the peroneal artery perforator was absent and the flap was based on the perforator of an anterolateral malleolar branch (antegrade) while the remaining 30 flaps were based on the perforator of the peroneal artery (retrograde
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The lateral supramalleolar flap provided coverage to almost all regions of the foot and ankle with a cosmetically acceptable donor and recipient site. There were no problems with shoe wear, as only 2 patients required defatting for cosmetic reasons. Microvascular expertise was required for a predictable outcome.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34754445
doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102916
pii: S2049-0801(21)00866-9
pmc: PMC8556601
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
102916Informations de copyright
© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of IJS Publishing Group Ltd.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None.
Références
Surg Radiol Anat. 1988;10(3):195-9
pubmed: 3147532
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001 Feb;107(2):383-92
pubmed: 11214053
J Reconstr Microsurg. 1989 Jan;5(1):1-6
pubmed: 2918488
Ann Plast Surg. 2005 Jan;54(1):49-54
pubmed: 15613883
Br J Plast Surg. 1993 Mar;46(2):151-5
pubmed: 8461904
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Dec;136(6):815e-829e
pubmed: 26595037
Magy Traumatol Ortop Kezseb Plasztikai Seb. 1994;37(4):371-4
pubmed: 7833996
Br J Plast Surg. 2001 Jan;54(1):76-9
pubmed: 11121326
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59(9):919-26; discussion 927
pubmed: 16920582
Br J Plast Surg. 1991 Aug-Sep;44(6):459-62
pubmed: 1933119
Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2006;40(2):106-10
pubmed: 16537258
Br J Plast Surg. 2001 Jun;54(4):303-9
pubmed: 11355984
Ann Plast Surg. 1998 Sep;41(3):307-10
pubmed: 9746090
Br J Plast Surg. 2001 Jul;54(5):428-33
pubmed: 11428776
Foot Ankle. 1988 Jun;8(6):327-30
pubmed: 3402851
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1988 Jan;81(1):74-81
pubmed: 2892218
J Trauma. 2003 Feb;54(2):379-90
pubmed: 12579071
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985 Jul;67(6):935-41
pubmed: 2862150
Surg Radiol Anat. 1994;16(1):3-8; discussion 9
pubmed: 8047965
Int J Surg. 2019 Dec;72:156-165
pubmed: 31704426
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1979 Dec;64(6):745-59
pubmed: 390575
Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 1996 Apr;41(2):127-35
pubmed: 8761057
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997 Oct;100(5):1172-83; discussion 1184-5
pubmed: 9326779
Br J Plast Surg. 1984 Jan;37(1):80-7
pubmed: 6692066
J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2005 Jul-Sep;17(3):76-9
pubmed: 16320805
Indian J Plast Surg. 2020 Mar;53(1):83-89
pubmed: 32367921