RESUMO
(1) Background: Lower extremity microvascular reconstruction aims at restoring function and preventing infection while ensuring optimal cosmetic outcomes. Muscle (M) or fasciocutaneous (FC) free flaps are alternatively used to treat similar conditions. However, it is unclear whether one option might be considered superior in terms of clinical outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing M and FC flaps to evaluate this issue. (2) Methods: The PRISMA guidelines were followed to perform a systematic search of the English literature. We included all articles comparing M and FC flap reconstructions for lower limb soft tissue defects following trauma, infection, or tumor resection. We considered flap loss, postoperative infection, and donor site morbidity as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included minor recipient site complications and the need for revision surgery. (3) Results: A total of 10 articles involving 1340 patients receiving 1346 flaps were retrieved, corresponding to 782 M flaps and 564 FC flaps. The sizes of the studies ranged from 39 to 518 patients. We observed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in terms of donor site morbidity and total flap loss with better outcomes for FC free flaps. Moreover, the majority of authors preferred FC flaps because of the greater aesthetic satisfaction and lesser rates of postoperative infection. (4) Conclusion: Our data suggest that both M and FC free flaps are safe and effective options for lower limb reconstruction following trauma, infection, or tumor resection, although FC flaps tend to provide stronger clinical benefits. Further research should include larger randomized studies to confirm these data.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Goals of lower extremity microvascular reconstruction (LEMR) include the restoration of function, prevention of infection, and optimal cosmesis. Indications for LEMR include large defects that are not amenable to pedicled options, a large zone of injury, and large complex defects. The novice microsurgeon should first master a handful of free flaps to develop an armamentarium of options for addressing such defects. The scope of this review is to provide free flap options for LEMR in any of the thirds of the lower leg. After reading this article, the reader will understand variations, advantages, disadvantages, indications, and tips for raising each of these flaps. METHODS: Six most commonly used free flaps for LEMR are described in this paper, including the anterolateral thigh flap (ALT) and its variations, the radial forearm flap (RFFF), the lateral arm flap (LAF), the gracilis muscle flap, the rectus abdominis flap (RAF) and the latissimus dorsi flap and its variations. Indications, advantages, disadvantages and technique tips are discussed for each flap. Moreover, selection of the recipient vessels, preoperative management along with an algorithm are also provided. CONCLUSIONS: The ALT flap is a workhorse in covering defects of the leg, foot, and ankle. It's the flap of choice at our institution, especially given the number of traumatic wounds seen as a result of motor vehicles, all-terrain vehicles (ATV), lawnmowers, and gunshot wounds (GSW). At times, the lower extremity zone of injury requires a distant donor site. The RAF can also provide coverage for large soft tissue defects but donor-site morbidity remains its main drawback. The LAF and RFFF provide two pliable options, one that provides pliable soft tissue with minimal donor site morbidity and another that provides a long pedicle. The free gracilis flap is an excellent choice for crossing the ankle joint. Lastly, the free latissimus dorsi is indicated for large defects of the lower extremity independently of the location.