VERSATILITY OF PARAUMBILICAL PERFORATOR FLAP FOR UPPER LIMB RECONSTRUCTION

Background Microvascular flap and groin flap are the most commonly used flaps for upper limb reconstruction. Microvascular flap can not be done in certain situations and groin flap is not convenient for coverage of forearm defect and elbow defect. Paraumbilical perforator (pup) flaps can provide a large amount of tissue for coverage of forearm , elbow defects and mitigates the side effects of groin flap. Material and method A retrospective study was conducted for reconstruction of soft tissue defects from finger tip to elbow between January 2016 to December 2019 with PUP flaps .Demographic data, size of the defect, etiology ,flap design and flap complication were analysed . Result The age of the patients ranged from 12 years to 56 year with mean age of 29.85 years and SD = 11.073. Male to female ratio was 1.5 : 1 (M=12 , F= 8). Size of the defect varied between 20 cm2 to 288cm2 with mean of 88.1 cm 2 and SD = 29.69 .No of cases with flap dimension < 100 cm 2 (n= 13), and > 100 cm2 (n= 7) . Aetiology of injury included vehicular accidents in 10 patients, machine injury in 2 patients, electrical burns in 6 patients post snake bite ulcer 2 patients. The location of the defect included hands, forearm and the elbow, and fingers.Flap was directed Superolaterally in 18 patients , inferolaterally in one case , and combined medially and laterally in one case. There was no case of complete flap failure. Conclusion Paraumbilical perforator flap can be a safe and reliable option for soft tissue reconstruction in varied areas of upper limb.

Reconstructive microsurgery in upper limb reconstruction: 30 years’ experience of a single surgeon

The reconstruction of compound tissue defects in upper extremity injuries often represents a challenge. The goal of reconstruction is to obtain not only a good cosmetic result, but also the best possible function. Microsurgery highly contributes to the management of upper limb simple or complex defects by offering a large number of surgical possibilities. Due to advances in understanding of blood supply to tissues and microsurgical techniques in the last 50 years, microsurgeons have renounced more and more to the use of traditional flaps in favour of the more reliable perforator flaps. This article presents the experience of a single surgeon performing post-traumatic upper limb reconstructive microsurgery over the last 30 years.

Reconstruction

The principles of upper limb reconstruction are to perform careful wound excision, fix the skeleton, reconstruct vessels, nerves, tendons, and bone as required (either immediate or delayed), and to obtain primary healing of the soft tissues with healthy vascularized tissue. This enables early movement—ideally, supervised by hand therapists—and generally results in a good outcome. In particular, delayed healing and immobility can lead to long-term morbidity. We provide a general overview of the principles of surgical incisions in the hand, wound care, and suturing, and discuss the use of skin grafts and flaps in the upper limb. We describe reconstruction of the different areas of the upper limb, along with detailed sections on digital and thumb reconstruction.

One versus Two Venous Anastomoses in Microvascular Upper Extremity Reconstruction

Background Free tissue transfers are routinely performed for reconstruction of the upper limb. Main complication in free flap surgery still stems from vascular compromise and many technical controversies exist regarding the technical details of how to perform the microvascular anastomosis. This study evaluates outcomes regarding the execution of one versus two venous anastomoses for upper limb reconstruction. Methods In this study, 79 patients underwent 86 free anterolateral thigh (ALT) or groin flaps for upper limb reconstruction after trauma, infection, or malignancies. The data were retrospectively screened for patients' demographics, perioperative details, flap survival, and surgical complications. The cases were divided into two groups regarding the number of performed venous anastomoses: one versus two veins. Results No significant differences existed between the two groups regarding preoperative comorbidities (ALT: 16 one, 21 two veins; groin: 16 one, 33 two veins). Overall, there was no significant difference regarding the rate of major (1 vein: 18.8% vs. 2 veins: 20.4%; p > 0.05) and minor (1 vein: 3.1% vs. 2 veins: 3.7%; p > 0.05) surgical complications during the 3-month follow-up period. Major complications included total flap losses of 9.4% (1 vein) versus 7.4% (2 veins) (p > 0.05). Conclusion This study analyzed a series of microsurgical reconstructions with a focus on the impact of the number of performed venous anastomoses. The findings suggest that successful free tissue transfer for upper limb reconstruction can be achieved independent of the number of venous anastomoses. However, to promote additional safety, a second vein should be performed whenever technically possible.

Pedicled Oblique Para-Umbilical Perforator (OPUP) Flap for Upper Limb Reconstruction

Background: Groin flap has been considered the workhorse flap for hand reconstruction. However it has certain drawbacks when covering defects over elbow or proximal forearm. Pedicled oblique paraumbilical perforator (OPUP) based flaps provide a good alternative in such cases. Methods: We performed OPUP flap in 11 cases of complex upper limb reconstructions over the past one year. We report our experience with this flap. Results: All flaps survived. One patient had marginal necrosis of 1 cm in the proximal end after flap division. Three patients had donor site scar hypertrophy. Conclusions: OPUP flap is superior to groin flap for larger defects or defects around the elbow. The major disadvantage is the donor site scar which is prone to hypertrophy.