Microsurgery · 2023
Coverage of radial forearm free flap donor site defect using another free flap.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lee Jong-Koo, Lee Kyeong-Tae
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Donor site defects following the radial forearm flap (RFF) harvest have been usually covered with skin grafting, which often lead to suboptimal outcomes and donor morbidities, including delayed healing and scar contractures. The present report aimed to evaluate the outcomes of using another free flap, the domino flap, for coverage of donor site defects following RFFF harvest.
METHODS: Five patients (two males and three females) who underwent coverage of donor defects of RFFF using another free flap between 2019 and 2021 were reviewed. Their mean age was 74 years and the mean dimension of the defect of the RFF donor site was 8.7 × 5.6 cm. Four patients used an anterolateral thigh flap and one used a superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator flap.
RESULTS: The mean size of the domino flaps were 12.2 × 5.8 cm. Distal stumps of radial vessels adopting retrograde flow were used as recipients in four cases, and proximal ones adopting anterograde in one. The donor site of the domino flaps was primarily closed. All patients recovered well without any postoperative complications. Aesthetically pleasing outcomes with no functional impairment related to scar contractures were observed in the donor site of RFF during the mean follow-up of 15.7 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of another free flap for coverage of RFFF donor defects may provide rapid wound healing and satisfactory outcomes, and may be considered an alternative option in cases with large-sized defects that are expected to take a long time to achieve complete healing with skin grafting.
METHODS: Five patients (two males and three females) who underwent coverage of donor defects of RFFF using another free flap between 2019 and 2021 were reviewed. Their mean age was 74 years and the mean dimension of the defect of the RFF donor site was 8.7 × 5.6 cm. Four patients used an anterolateral thigh flap and one used a superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator flap.
RESULTS: The mean size of the domino flaps were 12.2 × 5.8 cm. Distal stumps of radial vessels adopting retrograde flow were used as recipients in four cases, and proximal ones adopting anterograde in one. The donor site of the domino flaps was primarily closed. All patients recovered well without any postoperative complications. Aesthetically pleasing outcomes with no functional impairment related to scar contractures were observed in the donor site of RFF during the mean follow-up of 15.7 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of another free flap for coverage of RFFF donor defects may provide rapid wound healing and satisfactory outcomes, and may be considered an alternative option in cases with large-sized defects that are expected to take a long time to achieve complete healing with skin grafting.