Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2010
Perfecting the design of the gluteus maximus perforator-based island flap for coverage of buttock defects.
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.
Kim Jeong Tae, Kim Youn Hwan, Naidu Shenthilkumar
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The new design of the gluteus maximus perforator-based island flap for coverage of gluteal defects has the distinct advantage of being able to use customizable tissue components for coverage and at the same time sparing the source vessel. This adds a further option for use in reconstruction.
METHODS: After excisional débridement of the lesion, a perforator adjacent to the defect is selected. The tissue of the donor region is pinched to simulate closure. The change in shape of the recipient defect is noted and the dimensions of this new shape are measured. This will serve as the new dimensions of the donor tissue. The tissue components required to fill the defect are then analyzed and the flap is raised. It can be either muscle-sparing, muscle-splitting, or muscle-inclusive. A 1- to 2-cm diameter of soft tissue around the perforator is preserved. The flap is islanded and transposed, and the donor site is closed primarily, acting as a "locking barrier" to the flap. Tension-free closure of the recipient flap is then carried out. Seventy-five patients underwent closure of varying defects of the gluteal region using this technique.
RESULTS: The authors had a total of three minor complications. The rest of the patients healed well, with no recurrence at a mean follow-up of 15 months.
CONCLUSIONS: The flap design for coverage of gluteal defects has a great impact on recurrence and complications. This design is novel and the flap is simple to elevate. This is an ideal flap in any high-risk patient in whom the risk of recurrence is high.
METHODS: After excisional débridement of the lesion, a perforator adjacent to the defect is selected. The tissue of the donor region is pinched to simulate closure. The change in shape of the recipient defect is noted and the dimensions of this new shape are measured. This will serve as the new dimensions of the donor tissue. The tissue components required to fill the defect are then analyzed and the flap is raised. It can be either muscle-sparing, muscle-splitting, or muscle-inclusive. A 1- to 2-cm diameter of soft tissue around the perforator is preserved. The flap is islanded and transposed, and the donor site is closed primarily, acting as a "locking barrier" to the flap. Tension-free closure of the recipient flap is then carried out. Seventy-five patients underwent closure of varying defects of the gluteal region using this technique.
RESULTS: The authors had a total of three minor complications. The rest of the patients healed well, with no recurrence at a mean follow-up of 15 months.
CONCLUSIONS: The flap design for coverage of gluteal defects has a great impact on recurrence and complications. This design is novel and the flap is simple to elevate. This is an ideal flap in any high-risk patient in whom the risk of recurrence is high.