Venous bypass grafts versus arteriovenous loops as recipient vessels for microvascular anastomosis in lower extremity reconstructions: A matched-pair analysis.

BACKGROUND: Limb salvage in patients with peripheral vascular disease (PVD) and soft tissue defects often requires both a restoration of blood flow to the lower extremity and soft tissue coverage. Outcomes of free tissue transfer may be affected by vein grafts, which can be used for the placement of an autologous venous bypass or an arteriovenous (AV) loop leading to different hemodynamic situations. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether free flap anastomosis to a bypass or an AV loop can be performed with comparable results. METHODS: We performed a matched-pair analysis of 22 patients with PVD undergoing free flap reconstructions of the lower extremity with end-to-side anastomosis to an autologous venous bypass (n = 11, 1 female and 10 male patients) or an AV loop (n = 11, 2 female and 9 male patients). Defects caused by trauma, infection, ulcer, or fasciotomy were reconstructed in each group with 5 muscle-based flaps, 3 parascapular flaps, 2 anterolateral thigh (ALT) flaps, and 1 conjoined latissimus dorsi and parascapular flap. Postoperative complications including thromboses, flap failures, wound complications, and hematomas were compared. RESULTS: Postoperative complication rates including 1 venous pedicle thrombosis (9%vs. 0%, P = 1.0), minor (18% vs. 9%, P = 1.0) and major wound complications (45% vs. 27%, P = .69) as well as hematomas (27% vs. 36%, P = 1.0) did not show relevant differences between the groups. Flap failures were absent in both groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with PVD, autologous venous bypass grafts may be used for end-to-side anastomoses of free flaps, with postoperative outcomes being comparable to AV loop reconstructions.

One-Stage versus Two-Stage Arteriovenous Loop Reconstructions: An Experience on 103 Cases from a Single Center.

BACKGROUND: The optimal time for flap anastomosis to an arteriovenous loop remains controversial. Whether perforator flaps and axially vascularized muscle or fasciocutaneous flaps lead to comparable outcomes in conjunction with arteriovenous loops has not been investigated. METHODS: Medical records from 103 patients undergoing arteriovenous loop reconstruction (76 one-stage and 27 two-stage) between 2007 and 2017 were reviewed. Postoperative outcomes were compared between one- and two-stage arteriovenous loop reconstructions and different types of free flaps. RESULTS: Rates of flap thrombosis, major wound complications, and flap failure did not differ significantly between one- and two-stage arteriovenous loop reconstructions (14.47 percent versus 11.11 percent, p = 1.00; 30.26 percent versus 25.93 percent, p = 0.67; and 10.53 percent versus 7.41 percent, p = 1.00). For two-stage arteriovenous loop reconstructions, the time interval between arteriovenous loop placement and flap anastomosis was a predictor for thrombotic events (OR, 1.31; p < 0.05). Anterolateral thigh flaps in conjunction with arteriovenous loops showed higher failure rates (33.33 percent) compared with all other flaps (6.59 percent) (p < 0.05) and combined latissimus dorsi and parascapular flaps (0 percent) (p < 0.05). Thrombosis rates were higher in anterolateral thigh flaps (33.33 percent) compared with all other flaps (10.99 percent; p = 0.056), and combined latissimus dorsi and parascapular flaps (0 percent; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Two-stage arteriovenous loop reconstructions do not lead to increased postoperative complications compared to one-stage arteriovenous loop reconstructions and may be favorable in complicated cases because of shorter operative times. To avoid an increased thrombosis risk, flap anastomosis should not be delayed beyond 10 days in two-stage arteriovenous loop reconstructions. Anterolateral thigh flaps are less suitable for arteriovenous loop reconstructions because of higher complication rates. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.