Simplified nomenclature for compound flaps

The unique niche for compound flaps is their potential role for the repair of massive defects that demands the simultaneous restoration of multiple, missing tissue types. These complex flaps can be sorted into two major classes, and their subtypes on the basis of their means of vascularization are described. (1) Solitary vascularization, the composite flap: "multiple tissue components with a single vascular supply and dependent parts." (2) Combined flaps: (a) Siamese flaps: "multiple flap territories, dependent due to some common physical junction, yet each retaining their independent vascular supply"; (b) conjoint flaps: "multiple independent flaps, each with an independent vascular supply, but linked by a common indigenous source vessel"; and (c) sequential flaps: "multiple independent flaps, each with an independent vascular supply, and artificially linked by a microanastomosis." Many technical modifications that have improved or will improve the reliability of these flaps should not be confused as distinct flap types, but rather acknowledged as variations that can be more conveniently classified for the purposes of improved communication and research by using this basic schema as a guideline.     

Two options for perforator flaps in the flank donor site: latissimus dorsi and thoracodorsal perforator flaps

Two types of perforators, septocutaneous and musculocutaneous, are found in the same donor site of the flank area, and two perforator flaps based on each perforator are clinically available. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish them from one another using different nomenclatures. Accordingly, the perforator flap based on a musculocutaneous perforator is named according to the name of the muscle perforated, the latissimus dorsi perforator flap, and the perforator flap based on a septocutaneous perforator, located between the serratus anterior and latissimus dorsi muscles, is named according to the name of the proximal vessel, the thoracodorsal perforator flap. In this series of 42 latissimus dorsi perforator flaps, flap size ranged from 5 x 3 cm to 20 x 15 cm, and two complications were observed: a marginal necrosis in an extremely large flap (26 x 12 cm) and a failure caused by infection. The thoracodorsal perforator flap was used in 14 cases, including two cases of chimeric composition. Flap size ranged from 4.5 x 3.5 to 18 x 15 cm, with no complications. In the two patterns of perforator flap that the author used, initial temporary flap congestion was observed in five latissimus dorsi perforator flap cases and two thoracodorsal perforator flap cases, when the flap was designed as a large flap or a less reliable perforator was selected. However, the congestion was not serious enough to cause flap necrosis. Several techniques, such as T anastomosis or inclusion of an additional perforator or a small portion of muscle, are recommended to prevent the initial flap congestion, especially when an unreliable perforator is inevitably used or when a flap larger than 20 cm long is required. A small portion of the muscle was included in six cases, when an unduly large or improperly long flap was planned. All of the flaps were successful and ranged from 22 x 7 to 15 x 28 cm, except for one case of distal flap necrosis in an extraordinarily large flap measuring 34 x 10 cm. Diverse selection of the perforator flap is one of the great advantages of the flank donor site, providing it with wider availability and more versatile composition for reconstruction or resurfacing.     

Cost-based comparison between perforator flaps and TRAM flaps for breast reconstruction

More women than ever before are undergoing mastectomies secondary to increased awareness and screening. This increase has also caused a corresponding increase in the number of breast reconstructions requested each year. The increased demand for reconstruction has fueled recent advances in new techniques. Aside from foreign-body reconstruction such as implants, the methods now being used are related to autogenous donations and reconstruction. Transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flaps and perforator flaps are currently being used for autogenous breast reconstruction. This study will compare these two techniques on the basis of cost and length of stay. A retrospective study of 49 patients undergoing a total of 64 perforator flap breast reconstructions at Memorial Medical Center in New Orleans, Louisiana, during the 1997 calendar year was used. There were 59 deep inferior epigastric perforator and five gluteal artery perforator breast reconstructions. All patients underwent some form of breast reconstruction and differed only in respect to whether a mastectomy was performed and whether the reconstruction was unilateral or bilateral. Those patients who underwent a mastectomy with immediate perforator flap reconstruction (n = 26) were then compared with patients undergoing mastectomy with immediate TRAM flap reconstruction (n = 154) at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. The data from the Anderson Study were obtained from material published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in 1996. Comparison of patients was limited to those who underwent mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction because this was the design of the M. D. Anderson study. This approach allowed a cost and length of stay comparison while keeping other variables relatively similar. Patients in the perforator flap series enjoyed a marginally shorter operating time and a much shorter length of stay. On average, the operative time for all perforator flap reconstructions was approximately 2 hours shorter than for all TRAM flaps. As for length of stay, perforator flap patients were discharged, on average, 3 days after the initial reconstruction. In contrast, TRAM flap patients remained in the hospital for an average of approximately 7 days after the initial reconstruction. The overall total, average cost for the perforator flap reconstruction in this study is $9625, whereas the average cost of all TRAM flaps performed in the Anderson study is $18,070.     

The value of preoperative Doppler sonography for planning free perforator flaps

The individual perforating vessels have a high degree of anatomical variation, therefore it is desirable to conduct a careful examination of them before undertaking a perforator flap operation. Because locating the vessels beforehand makes performing the operative procedure much easier, the aim of the present study was to assess the value of using simple acoustic Doppler sonography to plan a perforator flap operation. The vessel examinations were carried out before taking 46 free microvascular flaps from either the lower abdominal wall or the buttock for reconstructive breast surgery. The perforating vessels located were marked, and their position relative to the umbilicus or the most cranial point of the rima ani recorded using a coordinate system. In 40 patients, a perforator flap operation (deep inferior epigastric perforator flap, n = 32; superior gluteal artery perforator flap, n = 8) was actually carried out; in six of these patients, a myocutaneous flap was used because of the insufficient availability of perforating vessels. Before the operation, perforating vessels were marked for each patient, with an average of 7.3 for the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap and 6.5 for the superior gluteal artery perforator flap. Out of 286 vessels marked for later perforator flaps, 162 were identified during the operation. A preoperatively marked vessel was used in 37 of 40 patients. In the remaining patients, a vessel was used that had not been previously marked. The vertical and horizontal distance between the perforating vessels identified during the operation and the preoperative marks averaged 0.8 cm. The results show preoperative Doppler sonography to be useful for locating the position of individual perforating vessels, making it much easier to find them during the operation.     

Clinical applications of free soleus and peroneal perforator flaps

Clinical applications of two free lateral leg perforator flaps are described: a free soleus perforator flap that is based on the musculocutaneous perforator vessels from one of the three main arteries in the proximal lateral lower leg, and a free peroneal perforator flap that is based on the septocutaneous or direct skin perforator vessels from the peroneal artery in the distal and middle thirds of the lateral lower leg. The authors applied free soleus perforator flaps to 18 patients and free peroneal perforator flaps to five patients with soft-tissue defects. The recipient site was the great toe in 14 patients, the hand and fingers in five patients, the leg in two patients, and the upper arm and the jaw in one patient each. The largest soleus perforator flap was 15 x 9 cm, and the largest peroneal perforator flap was 9 x 4 cm. Vascular pedicle lengths ranged from 6.5 to 10 cm in soleus perforator flaps and from 4 to 6 cm in peroneal perforator flaps. All flaps, except for the flap in one patient in the peroneal perforator flap series, survived completely. Advantages of these flaps are that there is no need to sacrifice any main artery in the lower leg, and there is minimal morbidity at the donor site. For patients with a small to medium soft-tissue defect, these free perforator flaps are useful.     

Lower extremity muscle perforator flaps for lower extremity reconstruction

A true muscle perforator flap is distinguished by the requisite intramuscular dissection of its musculocutaneous perforator to capture the same musculocutaneous territory but with total exclusion of the muscle, and thereby results in minimal functional impairment. Adhering to this definition, several lower extremity donor sites now are available, each with specific attributes especially useful for consideration in the treatment of lower extremity defects. In this author's experience over the past two decades, 20 lower extremity muscle perforator flaps using multiple donor sites proved advantageous for lower extremity coverage problems as either a local pedicled flap or as a microsurgical tissue transfer. Significant complications occurred in 30 percent of flaps (six of 20) in that further intervention was required. Venous insufficiency and bulkiness were found to be the major inherent shortcomings. However, giant flaps, lengthy and large-caliber vascular pedicles, and the possibility for combined flaps were important assets. The choice of a lower extremity muscle perforator flap for lower extremity reconstruction limited the surgical intervention and morbidity to a single body region.