"Extra-anatomical Pedicle Rerouting" An alternative technique to obtain new recipient vessels for microsurgical reconstruction in unfavorable clinical situations.

BACKGROUND: Lack of adequate recipient vessels in certain anatomically unfavorable locations or in complex clinical situations is still a limitation to successful microsurgical transfer. To address such complex cases, advanced microsurgical techniques should be applied. In this paper, the authors describe their experience with the Extra-anatomical Pedicle Rerouting (EPR) technique, an alternative approach that was used in selected cases throughout the body to obtain healthy recipient vessels for microsurgical reconstruction in unfavorable clinical situations where suitable recipient vessels were difficult to find. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with defects of variable etiology (oncological resection, trauma, previous surgeries) located in the trunk or upper and lower extremities received EPR free flap reconstruction at our Institution. Operative data, postoperative course, and complications were recorded. Clinical and photographic follow-ups were also documented. RESULTS: A total of 15 flaps (6 antero-lateral thigh (ALT), 6 latissimus dorsi/thoracodorsal artery perforator flap (LD/TDAP), 3 deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap (DIEP)) were transferred adopting the EPR technique for oncological (11) and post-traumatic (4) defects. According to the different clinical scenarios, the rerouted vessels were the thoraco-acromial, posterior circumflex humeral, thoracodorsal, deep inferior epigastric, lateral circumflex femoral, anterior tibial, and medial sural pedicles. Mean length of the rerouted vascular conduits was 6.53 cm. Mean operative time was 420 minutes. No major complications were registered. Minor wound dehiscence was observed and managed conservatively in 3 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The EPR technique proved to be useful in a reliable and reproducible manner in different regions of the body as an alternative solution to obtain healthy recipient vessels in anatomically and surgically unfavorable clinical situations.

Thigh reconstruction between form and function: An algorithm for flap selection based on a series of 70 oncological patients.

INTRODUCTION: Thigh reconstruction after oncological resection represents a challenge in terms of ideal morphological and functional outcomes to aim for. Very few papers presented a comprehensive approach to this topic, most of them being only small cases series. The purpose of this article was to review our institutional experience in the field of thigh soft-tissue reconstruction, proposing an algorithm to choose the most convenient pedicled or free flap approach according to the different clinical scenarios and the specific morpho-functional requirements of the case. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed patients who received flap reconstruction for thigh soft-tissue defects after oncological resection between 2014 and 2021. Demographic and operative data were recorded. Twelve months post-operatively, patients were asked to rate the esthetic and functional outcomes of the reconstructive procedure on a 5-point Likert scale. Additionally, for patients receiving a free functional muscle transfer to restore quadriceps or hamstring function, recovery was evaluated with the Medical Research Council Scale for Muscle Strength. RESULTS: Seventy flap reconstructions of the thigh were, respectively, performed after sarcoma (n = 43), melanoma (n = 13) and non-melanoma skin cancer (n = 14) resection. Pedicled flaps were used in 55 patients: 46 perforator flaps (32 ALT, 4 AMT, 4 PAP, 2 TFL, 2 MSAP, 2 DIEP) and 9 muscle or myocutaneous flaps (4 medial gastrocnemius, 2 gracilis, and 3 VRAM). Microsurgical reconstruction was performed in 15 patients for extensive defects (2 SCIP, 1 latissimus dorsi-LD, 1 thoracodorsal artery perforator-TDAP, 1 ALT, 2 DIEP flaps) or when >50% of the quadriceps or hamstring compartments were resected (eight free functional muscle transfer including five vastus lateralis, two LD, and one rectus femoris). Extensive defect surface, previous irradiation and neoadjuvant chemotherapy appeared to be predictors of free flap reconstruction. Complication (49% vs. 26.6%; p > .05) and readmission rates (32.7% vs. 13.3%; p > .05) were comparable between pedicled and free flap groups, as well as complications severity scores according to Clavien-Dindo classification (1.15 vs. 1.29; p > .05). However, patients with previous irradiation experienced worse outcomes when receiving pedicled rather than free flaps in terms of reintervention (87.5% vs. 28.6%; p = .04) and readmission rates (87.5% vs. 14.29%; p = .01), and severity of surgical complications. Overall patients' satisfaction was high, with esthetic and functional mean score of 4.31 and 4.12, respectively (p > .05). In the FFMT group, M5, M4, M3, and M2 strength was observed in 3, 3, 1, and 1 patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Oncological thigh defects are usually well addressed with pedicled perforator flaps. Microsurgical reconstruction offers reliable and reproducible results in extensive defects and in previously irradiated fields or when functional restoration is indicated.