Timing of Free Flaps for Traumatic Wounds of the Lower Extremity: Have Advances in Perioperative Care Changed the Treatment Algorithm?

BACKGROUND: Despite the landmark study by Godina 30 years ago, opinions still vary within the literature about the management of complex traumatic wounds in the lower extremity. We present a large series of lower extremity reconstructions with vascularized free tissue and examine the perioperative factors that influenced the success of these cases. METHODS: We reviewed 88 patients with free flap reconstruction of traumatic lower extremity wounds over 8 years. Primary outcomes were flap infections, flap loss, total flap-specific complications, and total recipient site complications. Independent variables specific to perioperative care including time to flap coverage, injury classification, exposed or infected hardware, prior osteomyelitis, use of wound vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) therapy, and concurrent polytrauma were investigated to establish their influence on primary outcomes. Each independent variable was assessed using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test and was included in a logistic regression analysis to establish significance. RESULTS: Of the 88 patients, 8 had flap loss, 8 had flap infections, and a total of 23 had primary adverse outcomes. Timing of the reconstruction, VAC use, injury classification, prior hardware or wound status, or presence of polytrauma had no statistically significant impact on the primary outcomes. Injury classification/severity on total recipient site complications (p = 0.051) and flap-specific complications (p = 0.073) trended toward significance; however, subgroup analysis did not achieve significance. Logistic regression of any recipient site complication including all independent variables similarly showed no significance. CONCLUSION: Although the original study by Godina suggests early coverage is critical to optimize outcomes, in the modern era of advanced wound care, our study adds to a growing body of evidence that supports the de-emphasis of the 72-hour reconstruction interval. Our current management is focused on more effectively coordinating efficient peritraumatic and perioperative care on an individualized basis in the often very complicated polytrauma patient.

Myth-Busting the DIEP Flap and an Introduction to the Abdominal Perforator Exchange (APEX) Breast Reconstruction Technique: A Single-Surgeon Retrospective Review.

BACKGROUND: Anatomical variations in perforator arrangement may impair the surgeon's ability to effectively avoid rectus muscle transection without compromising flap perfusion in the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap. METHODS: A single surgeon's experience was reviewed with consecutive patients undergoing bilateral abdominal perforator flap breast reconstruction over 6 years, incorporating flap standardization, pedicle disassembly, and algorithmic vascular rerouting when necessary. Unilateral reconstructions were excluded to allow for uniform comparison of operative times and donor-site outcomes. Three hundred sixty-four flaps in 182 patients were analyzed. Operative details and conversion rates from DIEP to abdominal perforator exchange ("APEX") arms of the algorithm were collected. Patients with standardized DIEP flaps served as the controlling comparison group, and outcomes were compared to those who underwent abdominal perforator exchange conversion. RESULTS: The abdominal perforator exchange conversion rate from planned DIEP flap surgery was 41.5 percent. Mean additional operative time to use abdominal perforator exchange pedicle disassembly was 34 minutes per flap. Early postsurgical complications were of low incidence and similar among the groups. One abdominal perforator exchange flap failed, and there were no DIEP flap failures. One abdominal bulge occurred in the DIEP flap group. There were no abdominal hernias in either group. Fat necrosis rates (abdominal perforator exchange flap, 2.4 percent; DIEP flap, 3.4 percent) were significantly lower than that historically reported for both transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous and DIEP flaps. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed no added risk when using pedicle disassembly to spare muscle/nerve structure during abdominal perforator flap harvest. Abdominal bulge/hernia was nearly completely eliminated. Fat necrosis rates were extremely low, suggesting benefit to pedicle disassembly and vascular routing exchange when required. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Assessing Age as a Risk Factor for Complications in Autologous Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is primarily a diagnosis of older women. Many patients seeking breast reconstruction are elderly women (aged 65 years or older). However, many surgeons anecdotally believe that surgery in elderly patients is inherently dangerous, or at least prone to more complications. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study composed of chart review of all deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction patients at a single institution divided into an elderly cohort (65 years or older) and a nonelderly cohort (younger than 65 years). Cohort was the primary predictor variable. Demographic and comorbidity data were secondary predictor variables. Primary outcomes were complete flap loss, partial flap loss, or need for flap reexploration. Secondary outcomes such as wound healing problems, seroma, and others were also assessed. RESULTS: There were 285 flaps in the nonelderly cohort and 54 flaps in the elderly cohort. The elderly cohort had higher rates of diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Chi-square analysis showed no significant differences in primary outcomes between the two cohorts. Breast wound dehiscence was significantly higher in the elderly cohort (p < 0.01). On logistic regression, being elderly was seen as a significant risk factor for complete flap loss (OR, 10.92; 95 percent CI, 0.97 to 122.67; p = 0.05). The overall success rate for the nonelderly cohort was 99.6 percent, whereas the success rate for the nonelderly cohort was 96.3 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly women desire breast reconstruction. Free flap breast reconstruction is a viable and safe procedure in these patients. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Creation of a Central Under Flap Pocket Allows Secondary Implant Augmentation of Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: When a single perforator flap does not provide adequate volume or projection for satisfactory breast reconstruction, the addition of an implant may be considered at the time of second-stage revisions. Dissection of an implant pocket beneath the flap may lead to the inadvertent injury of the flap pedicle as the tissue planes have been obscured by tissue ingrowth. The authors present a technique in which the boundaries of the implant pocket are predetermined at the time of flap reconstruction allowing an implant to be inserted at the second stage in ideal position with greater ease of dissection and minimal risk to the flap pedicle. METHODS: Forty patients (80 bilateral perforator flap breast reconstructions) treated with the creation of central under flap pocket technique in anticipation of subsequent sub flap implant augmentation within an 18-month period were assessed retrospectively. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients with flaps (85%) went on to receive secondary augmentation with silicone implants. The average percentage increase in volume contributed by the implant was 41%. The undersurface of the acellular dermal matrix was readily identified, and its medial most extent safely determined, allowing the expeditious recreation of the predelineated central under-flap implant pocket. No flap pedicles were injured during the process, and the implants were placed in a favorable position providing maximum projection to the reconstruction. No subsequent development of fat necrosis was identified after augmentation. CONCLUSION: The creation of central under flap pocket technique allows for safe, effective, and expedient delayed implant augmentation of perforator flap breast reconstruction.

Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Ptosis: Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction Allows Full Secondary Mastopexy with Complete Nipple Areolar Repositioning.

BACKGROUND: Patients with moderate to severe ptosis are often considered poor candidates for nipple-sparing mastectomy. This results from the perceived risk of nipple necrosis and/or the inability of the reconstructive surgeon to reliably and effectively reposition the nipple-areola complex on the breast mound after mastectomy. METHODS: A retrospective review identified patients with grade II/III ptosis who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate perforator flap reconstruction and subsequently underwent a mastopexy procedure. The mastopexies included complete, full-thickness periareolar incisions with peripheral undermining around the nipple-areola complex to allow for full transposition of the nipple-areola complex relative to the surrounding skin envelope. RESULTS: Seventy patients with 116 nipple-sparing mastectomies met inclusion criteria. The most common complications were minor incisional dehiscence (7.7 percent) and variable degrees of necrosis in the preserved breast skin (3.4 percent) after the initial mastectomy. There were no cases of nipple-areola complex necrosis following the secondary mastopexy. CONCLUSIONS: The authors demonstrate that full mastopexy, including a complete full-thickness periareolar incision and nipple-areola complex repositioning on the breast mound, can be safely performed after nipple-sparing mastectomy and perforator flap breast reconstruction. The underlying flap provides adequate vascular ingrowth to support the perfusion of the nipple-areola complex despite complete incisional interruption of the surrounding cutaneous blood supply. These findings may allow for inclusion of women with moderate to severe ptosis in the candidate pool for nipple-sparing mastectomy if oncologic criteria are otherwise met. These findings also represent a significant potential advantage of autogenous reconstruction over implant reconstruction in women with breast ptosis who desire nipple-sparing mastectomy. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Localization of the dominant deep inferior epigastric artery perforator by computed tomography angiogram: does the standard deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap design include the dominant perforator?

BACKGROUND: The deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) free flap is the optimal autogenous reconstructive technique in many patients undergoing postmastectomy. Our aim was to evaluate the standard DIEP free flap design in relation to the dominant perforating vessels using computed tomography angiography (CTA). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed CTAs from 75 patients who had undergone perforator flap reconstruction within the past year. Locations of the largest perforator with a minimum diameter of 2.0 mm piercing the anterior rectus fascia were recorded. RESULTS: Of 150 hemiabdomens reviewed, 146 (97.3%) had a dominant perforator. The median location for the dominant perforator was 3.3 cm lateral and 0.9 cm below the umbilicus. One hundred twenty-one (83%) of the dominant perforators arose within 3 cm of the umbilicus. One hundred one (69%) arose at or below the level of the umbilicus. Forty-five (31%) arose above the level of the umbilicus. Thirteen (9%) arose more than 2 cm above the umbilicus. CONCLUSIONS: The standard DIEP flap design incorporates most of the dominant perforating vessels. However, a significant number of perforators arise at or above the umbilicus, which would be near the edge or out of the standard design of the DIEP. Our findings support the use of preoperative CTA in the evaluation of patients undergoing DIEP free flap reconstruction. Modification of flap design to include the dominant perforating vessels should be considered when the dominant vessel is outside the standard design of the DIEP.

Virtual surgical planning in complex composite maxillofacial reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Complex osteocutaneous maxillofacial reconstruction requiring multiple free flaps and with an extensive zone of injury can be fraught with complications and difficulty. Often, the remnants of native mandible are malpositioned and the skeletal structure of the upper face is distorted. The authors seek to extend the use of virtual planning to complex maxillofacial reconstruction by presenting their early experience in these difficult patients. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 10 consecutive patients who underwent complex maxillofacial reconstruction using virtual surgical planning was undertaken. The authors define complex maxillofacial reconstruction as that requiring an osteocutaneous flap in which multiple osteotomies were required in addition to at least one of the following: need for multiple free flaps, history of osteoradionecrosis, and ballistic injury. Synthes Proplan CMF surgical planning was performed using computed tomographic scanning of the maxillofacial area and the donor site. Jigs and cutting guides were created and plates were prebent. The flap was harvested and osteotomized using the jigs and inset. Postoperative computed tomographic scanning was performed to evaluate the reconstruction. RESULTS: Ten consecutive patients who met the criteria underwent review. There were no intraoperative complications. Postoperative computed tomographic scans showed excellent contour of the osseous flaps. All patients had functional mandibular range of motion. CONCLUSIONS: Use of virtual surgical planning allows for complex maxillofacial reconstruction with multiple simultaneous free flaps to be performed reliably and successfully. The use of prefabricated jigs and precontoured plates eases osteocutaneous flap molding and inset, allowing for a more complex procedure to be successful.

Anterolateral thigh flap for trauma reconstruction.

High velocity injuries have traditionally been covered with free muscle flaps. We sought to evaluate the utility of the anterolateral thigh flap (ALT) flap as a primary choice in reconstructing traumatic injuries in Western patients.A retrospective chart review was conducted of 122 patients treated at the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center and at the Louisiana State University Trauma Center. Data collected included defect size, donor site location, flap composition and size, number of anastamoses, number of perforators, donor site closure, and complications.A total of 127 ALT flap reconstructions were performed. About 74% involved the lower extremity, 12% head and neck, 11% upper extremity, 2% abdomen, <1% chest, and <1% pelvis. The success rate was 96% with 3 total flap failures and 2 partial flap failures. Average follow-up was 9.3 months.The results of this review confirm that the ALT flap is a reliable, versatile tool for managing composite traumatic injuries.