Li Karen R, Rohrich Rachel N, Lava Christian X, Akbari Cameron M, Attinger Christopher E
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital; Washington, DC.
Department of Vascular Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital; Washington, DC.
Ann Plast Surg. 2024 Oct 1;93(4):488-495. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000004105.
Local flaps remain a valuable reconstructive tool as a means for limb salvage for patients with advanced arterial disease. Our single-center, retrospective cohort study aims to compare the outcomes of different patterns of blood flow affected by vascular disease to pedicles in local flap reconstruction of the foot and ankle.
A retrospective review of 92 patients and 103 flaps was performed. On angiograms, pattern of blood flow to the flap pedicle was determined to be direct inline flow (DF) or indirect flow (IF). Patterns of IF were either by arterial-arterial connections (AC) or unnamed randomized collaterals (RC). Primary outcomes were immediate flap success and limb salvage. Comparative analyses were performed using the χ2 and Fisher tests for categorical variables.
Among all flaps, 73.8% (n = 76/103) had DF and 26.2% (n = 27/103) had IF. Both groups experienced similar rates of immediate flap success (DF = 97.3% vs IF = 92.6%, P = 0.281) and limb salvage (DF = 75.% vs IF = 66.7%, P = 0.403). However, the rate of contralateral amputation was significantly higher in the IF group (26.9% vs 5.3%, P = 0.006). When comparing the 3 distinct patterns of blood flow (DF vs AC vs RC), pedicled flaps were more commonly supplied by DF and AC, while random pattern flaps were more commonly supplied by RC (P = 0.042).
Alternative routes of revascularization can maintain local flap viability and achieve similar rates of limb salvage but risks contralateral amputation. We found that pedicled and local muscle flaps require inline blood flow or blood supply by ACs. Meanwhile, random pattern flap can be supported by random collaterals.
