Analysis of 22 posterior ulnar recurrent artery perforator flaps: a type of proximal ulnar perforator flap.

BACKGROUND

The proximal ulnar artery has several branches, including perforators that are directly derived from the ulnar artery and anterior/posterior recurrent arteries. There are only a few reports of flaps that use the anterior/posterior recurrent arteries, and flaps employing their perforators as a main pedicle are yet to be reported. In this study, posterior ulnar recurrent artery perforator (PURAP) flaps were employed for elbow and forearm reconstruction.

METHODS

The 22 cases of reconstruction by PURAP flaps were analyzed in terms of the cause of injury, the recipient site, the vascular pedicle of the flap, flap size and survival, and the quality of the outcome. Donor-site morbidity, including the development of scars and numbness, was also evaluated.

RESULTS

All flaps were vascular pedicled island flaps. The perforator used was the medial and posterior perforator in 14 (63.6%) and 8 (36.4%) cases, respectively. The average flap size was 10 x 5 cm. Six months after the operation, the outcomes were judged to be excellent in 15 cases (68.2%), good in 6 cases (27.3%), and poor in 1 case (4.5%) because of partial necrosis of the distal part of the flap.

CONCLUSIONS

PURAP flaps can be harvested with 2 types of perforator pedicles (the medial or posterior perforator) and offer greater safety and flexibility, and less donor-site morbidity, than existing flaps used for elbow and forearm reconstruction. The ability to close the donor site primarily is a significant benefit of this flap.