When free tissue transfer is employed for defects of the lower third of the leg, recipient anastomoses are typically performed to major vessels. The aim of this study was to assess soleal perforators located in the distal half of the leg as potential vessels for free flap recipient vessels. Six fresh cadavers (12 limbs) were dissected. Perforators of adequate size (>or=1 mm) were documented as was the location and ease of dissection. Lower extremity magnetic resonance angiograms (MRAs) of 18 extremities were retrospectively reviewed. Two free tissue transfers to lower extremity perforators were presented. Soleal perforators most reliably matched our recipient vessel requirements. Perforators were of adequate size to support free tissue transfer, easy to dissect, and were located at mid/distal fibula level. MRA evaluation confirmed these results. One free tissue reconstruction was performed for trauma (posterior tibial perforator) and one was performed for a chronic radiation wound (peroneal perforator). The soleus muscle is easily exposed and is supplied distally by perforators from both the posterior tibial and the peroneal artery systems. These perforating branches are more accessible than the major lower extremity arteries, making the exposure and anastomosis technically easier and sparing potential iatrogenic injury to critical vessels.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Although preoperative imaging of perforator vasculature in planning microvascular reconstruction is commonplace, there has not been any clear demonstration of the evidence for this practice, or data comparing the many available modalities in an evidence-based approach. This article aims to provide an objective, evidence-based review of the literature on this subject.
The evidence supporting the use of various modalities of imaging was investigated by performing focused searches of the PubMed and Medline databases. The articles were ranked according to the criteria set out in March 2009 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine definitions. Endpoints comprised objective outcome data supporting the use of imaging, including flap loss, unplanned returns to theater, operative time reduction, and surgeon-reported stress.
The objective high level of evidence for any form of preoperative perforator imaging is low with only small number of comparative studies or case series investigating computed tomographic angiography (CTA), magnetic resonance angiography, handheld Doppler, color duplex, and classic angiography. Of all modalities, there is a growing body of level 2b evidence supporting the use of CTA.
While further multicenter trials testing hard outcomes are needed to conclusively validate preoperative imaging in reconstructive surgery, sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate that preoperative imaging can statistically improve outcomes, and that CTA is the current gold standard for perforator mapping.
Annals of plastic surgery 05/2012; 69(1):3-9. DOI:10.1097/SPA.0b013e318222b7b7 · 1.49 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Microsurgical free tissue transfer is playing a critical role in reconstruction of the soft tissue around the knee to salvage the limb, especially when the defects exist with a wide zone of injury or with a poor soft tissue condition, where local flaps are unavailable. For a successful free flap transfer, proper selection of a recipient vessel is essential and challenging. The survival and other outcomes of the transferred flaps were closely related to which recipient vessel was used and the location of anastomosis. In this article, we review most of the clinical reports about using free flaps to reconstruct the soft tissue around the knee, excluding the cases of postamputation, and discuss about the recipient vessels that can be used.
Annals of plastic surgery 02/2013; 71(4). DOI:10.1097/SAP.0b013e31824e5e6e · 1.49 Impact Factor
Note: This list is based on the publications in our database and might not be exhaustive.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.