Closure of distal defects of the lower extremity with a sural flap

2021 ◽  
pp. 52
Author(s):  
A.A. Shtutin ◽  
V.Yu. Mikhailichenko ◽  
I.A. Shtutin ◽  
S.A. Samarin
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Sural Flap

Risk factors associated with complications in lower-extremity reconstruction with the distally based sural flap: A systematic review and pooled analysis

2014 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 607-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine de Blacam ◽  
Salih Colakoglu ◽  
Adeyemi A. Ogunleye ◽  
John T. Nguyen ◽  
Ahmed M.S. Ibrahim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Sural Flap ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Lower Extremity Reconstruction ◽  
Extremity Reconstruction ◽  
Distally Based ◽  
Distally Based Sural Flap

scholarly journals Sural flap effectiveness in exposed lower extremity fractures

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 108
Author(s):  
Fernando Romero ◽  
JuanCarlos Gonzalez ◽  
CarlosRaul Reyes ◽  
Javier Ardebol
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Sural Flap

scholarly journals Reverse sural flap – A feasible option for oncological defects of the lower extremity, ankle, and foot: Our experience from Northeast India

2019 ◽  
Vol 08 (04) ◽  
pp. 255-257
Author(s):  
Abhijit Talukdar ◽  
Jitin Yadav ◽  
Joydeep Purkayastha ◽  
Niju Pegu ◽  
Pritesh R. Singh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Northeast India ◽  
Histopathological Diagnosis ◽  
Soft Tissue Defects ◽  
Sural Flap ◽  
Feasible Option ◽  
Sural Artery ◽  
Tissue Defects ◽  
Ankle And Foot

Abstract Background: Soft-tissue management around the lower third of the leg and foot presents a challenge to the surgeon. To achieve local control of tumor, additional surgical margins are required, thus creating large soft-tissue defects. The reverse sural artery flap (RSAF) is a popular option for many of these defects. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study of 26 patients who underwent resection of tumor around the lower leg, ankle, and foot, and reconstruction with RSAF was performed at our institute from 2012 to 2018. Results: Among the 26 studied patients, aged between 22 and 71 (mean age: 50.8) years, 5 were female and rest were male. The most common site of involvement by tumor was heel (42.3%), followed by sole (26.9%). The most common histopathological diagnosis was melanoma (61.5%), followed by squamous cell carcinoma (26.9%) and soft-tissue sarcoma (11.5%). Conclusion: The distally based sural flap is a reliable flap for the coverage of soft-tissue defects following oncological defects of the distal lower extremity and foot.

scholarly journals Versatility of Delayed Reverse Sural Flap for Reconstruction of the Distal Lower Extremity in High-Risk Patients

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 280 ◽  
Author(s):  
June Kyu Park ◽  
Kyung Sik Kim ◽  
Seung Hong Kim ◽  
Jun Choi ◽  
Jeong Yeol Yang
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Sural Flap ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

Sural Flap Use for the Treatment of Wounds With Underlying Osteomyelitis: Graft Size a Predictor in Outcome, a Systematic Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 560-566 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sham Persaud ◽  
Anthony Chesser ◽  
Ryan Pereira ◽  
Adrianne Ross
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Weight Bearing ◽  
Successful Outcome ◽  
Graft Size ◽  
Sural Flap ◽  
Flap Failure ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Versatile Technique ◽  
Treatment Of Wounds

The sural flap procedure is a versatile technique that can be used to cover many types of defects about the lower extremity. The management of soft tissue defects of the lower extremity with underlying osteomyelitis is difficult. The goal for any of these patients is to create a biomechanically stable foot for weight-bearing purposes with no continued infection. Data were gathered using multiple databases from the years 2000 to 2016. Data were compiled looking at the number of subjects, age, comorbidities, number of complications, number of failures, and average flap size of complications/failures. A total of 110 patients were gathered using 5 separate articles. Twenty-two of the 110 patients had short-term complications. Flap failure was seen in 9/110 patients. A significant difference was noticed in flap size between flap failure and complication groups and nonfailure groups. The average flap size of patients who had some form of complication or failure was 51.87 cm2 in size. The average graft size for patients without complications during their recovery was 36.54 cm2. Within our study, the failure rate of 8.9% and complication rate of 13.7% are consistent with previous reports on sural perforator flaps. Last, with regard to the effect of flap size, there were significant differences between patients with a successful outcome and those who experienced complications or failures. Levels of Evidence: Therapeutic, Level III: Systematic review

Combining Values

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-4, 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Proximal Phalanx ◽  
Common Error ◽  
The Third ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment ◽  
The Individual

Abstract To account for the effects of multiple impairments, evaluating physicians must provide a summary value that combines multiple impairments so the whole person impairment is equal to or less than the sum of all the individual impairment values. A common error is to add values that should be combined and typically results in an inflated rating. The Combined Values Chart in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, includes instructions that guide physicians about combining impairment ratings. For example, impairment values within a region generally are combined and converted to a whole person permanent impairment before combination with the results from other regions (exceptions include certain impairments of the spine and extremities). When they combine three or more values, physicians should select and combine the two lowest values; this value is combined with the third value to yield the total value. Upper extremity impairment ratings are combined based on the principle that a second and each succeeding impairment applies not to the whole unit (eg, whole finger) but only to the part that remains (eg, proximal phalanx). Physicians who combine lower extremity impairments usually use only one evaluation method, but, if more than one method is used, the physician should use the Combined Values Chart.

Quick Reference: Chapter 3: The Musculoskeletal System and Chapter 4: The Nervous System

2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 4-4
Keyword(s):  
Nervous System ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Musculoskeletal System ◽  
Multistep Method ◽  
Manual Muscle Testing ◽  
Motor Deficits ◽  
Lower Extremity Weakness ◽  
Residual Symptoms ◽  
Muscle Testing ◽  
Almost All

Abstract Lesions of the peripheral nervous system (PNS), whether due to injury or illness, commonly result in residual symptoms and signs and, hence, permanent impairment. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fourth Edition, divides PNS deficits into sensory and motor and includes pain in the former. This article, which regards rating sensory and motor deficits of the lower extremities, is continued from the March/April 2000 issue of The Guides Newsletter. Procedures for rating extremity neural deficits are described in Chapter 3, The Musculoskeletal System, section 3.1k for the upper extremity and sections 3.2k and 3.2l for the lower limb. Sensory deficits and dysesthesia are both disorders of sensation, but the former can be interpreted to mean diminished or absent sensation (hypesthesia or anesthesia) Dysesthesia implies abnormal sensation in the absence of a stimulus or unpleasant sensation elicited by normal touch. Sections 3.2k and 3.2d indicate that almost all partial motor loss in the lower extremity can be rated using Table 39. In addition, Section 4.4b and Table 21 indicate the multistep method used for spinal and some additional nerves and be used alternatively to rate lower extremity weakness in general. Partial motor loss in the lower extremity is rated by manual muscle testing, which is described in the AMA Guides in Section 3.2d.

Q&A: Multiple Lower Extremity Impairments and AMA Guides, Third Edition, Revised

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 15-16
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Kathryn Mueller ◽  
Steven Demeter ◽  
Randolph Soo Hoo
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity

Spinal Impairment Evaluation: Fifth Edition Changes

2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Robert H. Haralson
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Spinal Cord Injuries ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Treatment Results ◽  
Standard Terminology ◽  
Made In

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document