Background The superficial circumflex iliac artery (SCIA)-based iliac bone flap has yet to be widely used. The purpose of this article is to validate the feasibility of SCIA-based iliac bone flap transfers for reconstruction of small to moderate-sized bony defects. Retrospective outcome comparisons between SCIA-based iliac bone flaps and fibula flaps were made.
Methods Twenty-six patients with bony tissue defects underwent reconstructions using either free SCIA-based iliac bone flaps (13) or fibula flaps (13). Outcomes were evaluated 9 months after the reconstruction on the following basis: bone length, pedicle length, skin paddle area, bone union, donor-site complications, skin paddle survival, and complications at the reconstructed site.
Results There was no statistically significant difference in pedicle length (iliac bone vs. fibula; 5.5 ± 1.8 vs. 4.1 ± 1.5 cm; p = 0.181), in bone union rate (iliac bone vs. fibula; 100 vs 92.3%; p = 0.308), in donor-site complication rate (iliac bone vs. fibula; 0 vs. 7.7%; p = 0.308), or in skin paddle complete survival rate (iliac bone vs. fibula; 100 vs. 83.3%; p = 0.125). Statistically significant differences were observed in bone flap length (iliac bone vs. fibula; 4.8 ± 2.2 vs. 11.1 ± 4.8 cm; p = 0.0005), in skin paddle area (superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator flap vs. peroneal artery perforator flap; 58.8 ± 35.6 vs. 27.7 ± 17.5 cm2; p = 0.0343), and in reconstructed site complication rate (iliac bone vs. fibula; 0 vs. 30.8%; p = 0.030).
Conclusion In our series of SCIA-based iliac bone flap transfers, up to 8 × 3 cm could be procured along the iliac crest. When compared with fibula flap transfers, there were no significant statistical differences in pedicle length or in bone union rate; the SCIA-based iliac bone flap may be a feasible option for bony defects of small to moderate size.
Sequential chimeric free deep circumflex iliac artery bone flap and superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator flap from the same site for one-stage reconstructions of severe hand injury: A report of two cases