Chih-Hsun Lin, Ma Hsu
Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, 19F., No. 201, Sec. 2, Linong St., Beitou Dist., Taipei, 112, Taiwan.
National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2016 Aug;40(4):540-8. doi: 10.1007/s00266-016-0662-5. Epub 2016 Jun 14.
A perforator-based fasciocutaneous flap is an alternative type of flap for pressure sore reconstruction. The aim of the present study was to determine whether a single-perforator-based flap or a multiple-perforator-based flap is better for pressure sore reconstruction.
We reviewed the general data and postoperative complications in patients who received single-perforator-based or multiple-perforator-based fasciocutaneous flaps for pressure sore reconstruction between July 2009 and July 2012.
No differences in general data, comorbidities, wound locations, flap sizes (73.9 vs. 67.0 cm(2), P = 0.455), and operative times were noted between the single-perforator-based and multiple-perforator-based flap groups. The flap rotation arc was larger in the single-perforator-based flap group than in the multiple-perforator-based flap group; however, the difference in the rotation arc was not significant (99.2° vs. 55.5°, respectively; P = 0.199). Two patients had total flap necrosis and one had partial flap necrosis in the single-perforator-based flap group. None of flap necrosis was noted in the multiple-perforator-based flap group; however, no significant differences in major complications were noted between the two groups. All donor sites underwent primary closure.
This is the first clinical patient-matched research that considered the number of perforators and the rotation arc in applying perforator-based fasciocutaneous flaps in wound reconstruction. The results showed that the number of perforators is not the determinant factor of surgical outcome of the use of perforator-based fasciocutaneous flaps in pressure sore reconstruction. Thus, whether a single- or a multiple-perforator-based fasciocutaneous flap is used for flap perfusion does not jeopardize the operation. These results emphasize the reliability and convenience of using freestyle design of perforator-based flaps for pressure sore reconstruction. The design and clinical utility of the flaps have the advantage of being versatile.
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
基于穿支的筋膜皮瓣是用于压疮重建的另一种皮瓣类型。本研究的目的是确定单穿支皮瓣或多穿支皮瓣用于压疮重建哪种更好。
我们回顾了2009年7月至2012年7月期间接受单穿支或多穿支筋膜皮瓣进行压疮重建患者的一般资料和术后并发症。
单穿支皮瓣组和多穿支皮瓣组在一般资料、合并症、伤口位置、皮瓣大小(73.9 vs. 67.0 cm²,P = 0.455)和手术时间方面均无差异。单穿支皮瓣组的皮瓣旋转弧度比多穿支皮瓣组大;然而,旋转弧度的差异不显著(分别为99.2°和55.5°;P = 0.199)。单穿支皮瓣组有2例皮瓣完全坏死,1例部分坏死。多穿支皮瓣组未发现皮瓣坏死;然而,两组在主要并发症方面无显著差异。所有供区均进行了一期缝合。
这是第一项在伤口重建中应用基于穿支的筋膜皮瓣时考虑穿支数量和旋转弧度的临床患者匹配研究。结果表明,穿支数量不是基于穿支的筋膜皮瓣用于压疮重建手术结果的决定性因素。因此,使用单穿支或多穿支筋膜皮瓣进行皮瓣灌注均不影响手术。这些结果强调了基于穿支皮瓣的自由式设计用于压疮重建的可靠性和便利性。皮瓣的设计和临床实用性具有通用性优势。
证据水平IV:本刊要求作者为每篇文章指定证据水平。有关这些循证医学评级的完整描述,请参阅目录或作者在线指南www.springer.com/00266 。