How to do lower limb reconstruction using the keystone perforator island flap

This guide summarises the keystone perforator island flap (KPIF) in lower limb reconstruction from the groin to the ankle.

Combined effect of Ilizarov technique, low-intensity pulsed ultrasound, and teriparatide for limb reconstruction of Gustilo–Anderson type IIIc open tibial fracture with a large bone defect in elderly patients with severe osteoporosis: A case report

Background Gustilo–Anderson type IIIc tibial open fracture with large bone defects in severely osteoporotic elderly patients is a rare injury that may be a challenging clinical scenario.Case presentation This study presents the case of a 68-year-old man who sustained a Gustilo–Anderson type IIIc open tibial fracture with a large bone defect. The patient had severe osteoporosis and the bone was contaminated; therefore, we determined that the bone could not be returned to the tibia. The patient underwent acute limb shortening and gradual lengthening with an Ilizarov external fixator combined with low-intensity pulsed ultrasound and teriparatide administration for limb reconstruction, which allowed immediate full weight-bearing capacity. The fixator was removed at 12 months postoperatively, and by this time, the fracture had completely healed. At the most recent 5-year follow-up after the injury, the patient reported fully weight-bearing capacity without walking aids and had full knee and ankle range of motion.Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to report the use of combined Ilizarov technique, low-intensity pulsed ultrasound, and teriparatide for limb reconstruction of Gustilo–Anderson type IIIc open tibial fractures with large bone defects in elderly patients with severe osteoporosis.

Development of a patient-reported outcome measure in limb reconstruction

Aims Patients undergoing limb reconstruction surgery often face a challenging and lengthy process to complete their treatment journey. The majority of existing outcome measures do not adequately capture the patient-reported outcomes relevant to this patient group in a single measure. Following a previous systematic review, the Stanmore Limb Reconstruction Score (SLRS) was designed with the intent to address this need for an effective instrument to measure patient-reported outcomes in limb reconstruction patients. We aim to assess the face validity of this score in a pilot study. Methods The SLRS was designed following structured interviews with several groups including patients who have undergone limb reconstruction surgery, limb reconstruction surgeons, specialist nurses, and physiotherapists. This has subsequently undergone further adjustment for language and clarity. The score was then trialled on ten patients who had undergone limb reconstruction surgery, with subsequent structured questioning to understand the perceived suitability of the score. Results Ten patients completed the score and the subsequent structured interview. Considering the tool as a whole, 100% of respondents felt the score to be comprehensible, relevant, and comprehensive regarding the areas that were important to a patient undergoing limb reconstruction surgery. For individual questions, on a five-point Likert scale, importance/relevance was reported as a mean of 4.78 (4.3 to 5.0), with ability to understand rated as 4.92 (4.7 to 5.0) suggesting high levels of relevance and comprehension. Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level was calculated as 5.2 (10 to 11 years old). Conclusion The current SLRS has been shown to have acceptable scores from a patient sample regarding relevance, comprehensibility, and comprehensiveness. This suggests face validity, however further testing required and is ongoing in a larger cohort of patients to determine the reliability, responsiveness, precision, and criterion validity of the score in this patient group. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):705–709.

Canadian Trends in Free Flap Management for Microsurgical Lower Limb Reconstruction

Introduction: Free tissue transfers have become a mainstay in lower limb salvage, allowing safe and reliable reconstruction after trauma, tumor extirpation, and complex wounds. The optimal perioperative (PO) management of these flaps remains controversial. This study aims to assess the current state of practice among Canadian microsurgeons. Methods: Sixty-four Canadian microsurgeons were approached to complete an online questionnaire regarding their PO management of fasciocutaneous free flaps used for lower limb reconstruction. Trends in dangling timing and duration, use of venous couplers, compressive garments, thromboprophylaxis, and surgeons’ satisfaction with their protocol were assessed. Results: Twenty-eight surgeons responded. Fifty-seven percent did not have a specific mobilization protocol. Dangling was mainly initiated on postoperative days 5 to 6 (44%). The most common protocol duration was 5 to 6 days (43%). The concern for prolonged venous pooling was the main reason for delay of dangling (71%). Compressive garments were placed routinely by 12 surgeons (43%) with 20% starting before dangling, 46% with dangling, and 33% after dangling. Venous couplers were routinely used by 24 surgeons (85.7%). Trends in management were influenced by previous training in 53.6% of cases (vs evidence-based medicine 7.1%). Although 89.3% were satisfied with their approach, 92.8% would consider changing practice if higher-level evidence was available. Conclusions: The majority of Canadian microsurgeons initiate dangling early and utilize venous couplers. However, the use of compressive garments is limited. Trends in management are largely based on personal experience. Nearly all surgeons would consider changing their practice if higher-level evidence was available.

Exploring what is important to patients with regards to quality of life after experiencing a lower limb reconstructive procedure: a qualitative evidence synthesis

Background Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to understand the impact of lower limb reconstruction surgery on patients’ quality of life (QOL). Existing measures have not been developed to specifically capture patient experiences amongst adults with lower limb conditions that require reconstruction surgery. This review aimed to synthesise qualitative evidence to identify what is important to patients requiring, undergoing, or following reconstructive surgery for lower limb conditions. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO and Cinahl were searched from inception until November 2020. Studies were included if they employed qualitative research methods, involved patients requiring, undergoing or following lower limb reconstruction and explored patients’ experiences of care, treatment, recovery and QOL. Mixed methods studies that did not separately report qualitative findings, mixed population studies that were not separately reported and studies in languages other than English were excluded. Included studies were analysed using thematic synthesis. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative studies checklist was used to undertake quality assessment. Results Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The thematic synthesis identified two overarching themes: (1) areas of living key to QOL for lower limb reconstruction patients and (2) moving towards a new normal. The way in which lower limb reconstruction affects an individual’s QOL and their recovery is complex and is influenced by a range of inter-related factors, which will affect patients to varying degrees depending on their individual circumstances. We identified these factors as: pain, daily functioning and lifestyle, identity, income, emotional wellbeing, support, the ability to adapt and adjust and the ability to move forwards. Conclusions The way patients’ QOL is affected after a lower limb reconstruction is complex, may change over time and is strongly linked to their recovery. These findings will aid us in developing a conceptual framework which identifies the outcomes important to patients and those that should be included in a PROM. Further research is then required to establish whether the range of factors we identified are captured by existing PROMs. Depending on the outcome of this work, a new PROM for patients following lower limb reconstruction may be required.