RECONSTRUCTION OF FOREARM, WRIST AND HAND SKIN DEFECTS WITH LOCAL PERFORATOR FLAPS | ||||
| Ain Shams Medical Journal | ||||
| Article 9, Volume 70, 4, 5 & 6, July 2019, Page 335-347 PDF (425.63 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/asmj.2019.111195 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Mohammed Mostafa El-Mahy; Ahmed Naeem Atiyya; Ramy Ahmed Diab; Amr Mostafa Aly; Hassan Abdel Hamid Abdel Fattah | ||||
| Orthopaedics Department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background: During the last decades, anatomical studies on skin vascularization provided the base for the development of flaps nourished by perforating arteries and preserving major vessels. In the last years, perforator flaps have become an appealing option for coverage of a large range of defects as they allow for great freedom in design and for reconstruction of difficult wounds with minimal donor-site morbidity, but doubts regarding their reliability have overshadowed its safety in clinical practice. Aim of the Work: This prospective clinical study is conducted to assess the reliability and efficacy of local perforator flaps in coverage of hand, wrist, and forearm skin defects. Patients and methods: We conducted a prospective study involving 20 patients with hand, wrist, and forearm skin defects and were covered with local radial and ulnar arteries perforator flaps. Postoperative complications were recorded and assessment of patients’ satisfaction as regards donor site morbidity and aesthetic outcome of the flap was done by a questionnaire at the outpatient clinic and the results were classified as unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, and very good. Vancouver Scar Scale was applied as an objective tool for scar assessment postoperative. Three-month follow up was the end point of this study. Results: Radial artery perforator flaps were done in 11 cases (55 %) and ulnar artery perforator flaps in 9 cases (45%).Temporary venous congestion happened in 19 cases, distal tip necrosis in 10 cases, superficial epidermolysis in 8 cases, and arterial insufficiency in one case. Mean operative time was 63.8 min., 70.64 min. in RA perforator flaps and 55.44 min. in UA perforator flaps. Conclusion: Perforator flaps are a reliable tool for upper extremity coverage, with a low rate of failure and secondary surgery. These flaps are particularly useful for covering small and medium sized defects in the distal one third of the forearm, wrist, and hand; and they represent a reliable and effective alternative to free flaps. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| perforator flaps; skin defects; propeller flap; local flap; upper limb reconstruction | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 120 PDF Download: 330 |
||||
