Microsurgery · 2017
Reconstruction of elbow skin and soft tissue defects using perforator-pedicled propeller flaps.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Nakao Junichi, Umezawa Hiroki, Ogawa Rei, Mateev Musa A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The elbow is a challenging region to reconstruct functionally. Several closure methods for elbow wounds have been reported, including flap surgery. Here, we present the results obtained using a propeller flap pedicled by a posterior ulnar recurrence artery perforator (PURAP) or a radial collateral artery perforator (RCAP) for functional reconstruction of soft tissue defects in elbows.
METHODS: Twenty-four patients with an average age of 27.0 years (range, 9-52 years) underwent elbow soft tissue reconstructions between 2005 and 2015. Twenty-one patients were male and three were female. Among them, 18 patients received a PURAP flap transfer and six received a RCAP flap transfer. The frequent soft tissue defects were due to release of a postburn scar contracture in 12 patients, trauma in ten patients. Functional results were obtained by measuring range of motion (ROM).
RESULTS: The mean follow up time was 10.1 months (range, 4-22 months). The flaps ranged in size from 3 × 5 cm to 16 × 6 cm. Nearly all flaps survived with only one showing partial necrosis. 16 and 8 patients achieved ranges of motions of 0-5 and 6-15 degree extension and 130-145 degree flexion.
CONCLUSIONS: With the aims of easy flap harvest, primary donor site closure, skin texture match, and avoiding vascular anastomosis, both PURAP and RCAP were employed. Both flap transfer techniques were safe and effective for elbow soft tissue reconstruction. It is important to ensure that the skin defect and flap design are closely matched.
METHODS: Twenty-four patients with an average age of 27.0 years (range, 9-52 years) underwent elbow soft tissue reconstructions between 2005 and 2015. Twenty-one patients were male and three were female. Among them, 18 patients received a PURAP flap transfer and six received a RCAP flap transfer. The frequent soft tissue defects were due to release of a postburn scar contracture in 12 patients, trauma in ten patients. Functional results were obtained by measuring range of motion (ROM).
RESULTS: The mean follow up time was 10.1 months (range, 4-22 months). The flaps ranged in size from 3 × 5 cm to 16 × 6 cm. Nearly all flaps survived with only one showing partial necrosis. 16 and 8 patients achieved ranges of motions of 0-5 and 6-15 degree extension and 130-145 degree flexion.
CONCLUSIONS: With the aims of easy flap harvest, primary donor site closure, skin texture match, and avoiding vascular anastomosis, both PURAP and RCAP were employed. Both flap transfer techniques were safe and effective for elbow soft tissue reconstruction. It is important to ensure that the skin defect and flap design are closely matched.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdolescentAdultChildDermatologic Surgical ProceduresElbowExercise TherapyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGraft SurvivalHumansMaleMiddle AgedNecrosisPerforator FlapPostoperative ComplicationsRadial ArteryRange of Motion, ArticularPlastic Surgery ProceduresSoft Tissue InjuriesTransplant Donor SiteUlnar ArteryYoung AdultElbow Injuries