ABSTRACT
Vascularized bone grafts (VBGs) are widely employed to reconstruct upper extremity bone defects. Conventional bone grafting is generally used to treat defects smaller than 5–6 cm, when tissue vascularization is adequate and there is no infection risk. Vascularized fibular grafts (VFGs) are mainly used in the humerus, radius or ulna in cases of persistent non-union where traditional bone grafting has failed or for bone defects larger than 6 cm. Furthermore, VFGs are considered to be the standard treatment for large bone defects located in the radius, ulna and humerus and enable the reconstruction of soft-tissue loss, as VFGs can be harvested as osteocutaneous flaps. VBGs enable one-stage surgical reconstruction and are highly infection-resistant because of their autonomous vascularization. A vascularized medial femoral condyle (VFMC) free flap can be used to treat small defects and non-unions in the upper extremity. Relative contraindications to these procedures are diabetes, immunosuppression, chronic infections, alcohol, tobacco, drug abuse and obesity. The aim of our study was to illustrate the use of VFGs to treat large post-traumatic bone defects and osteomyelitis located in the upper extremity. Moreover, the use of VFMC autografts is presented.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism, a spectrum of diseases ranging from deep venous thrombosis to pulmonary embolism, is a major source of morbidity and mortality. The majority of cases described in plastic surgery involve abdominoplasty. Risk assessment and prophylaxis are paramount in such patients. General recommendations were recently developed, but the evidence in the literature was insufficient to prepare exhaustive guidelines regarding the medication, dosage, timing, or length of the prophylaxis. METHODS: A thromboprophylaxis protocol was developed for patients undergoing abdominoplasty. The protocol consisted of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative measures. Enoxaparin was administered as chemoprophylaxis in selected patients. The study involved 253 patients. The patients were analyzed for age, body mass index, enoxaparin dosage, risk factors, and complications. RESULTS: Deep venous thrombosis was documented in two cases (0.8%). No pulmonary embolism occurred. Three patients (1.2%) presented mild subcutaneous abdominal hematoma within the first postoperative week that spontaneously resorbed with neither aesthetic nor functional complications. Two patients (0.8%) presented severe hematoma requiring surgical re-intervention for drainage and hemostasis revision. Statistical analysis showed no significant correlation between enoxaparin dosage and hematoma (P=0.18) or deep venous thrombosis (P=0.61). CONCLUSIONS: The described thromboprophylaxis protocol proved to be effective in the prevention of thrombotic events, with an acceptable risk of hemorrhagic complications. Furthermore, it provides new evidence regarding the currently debated variables of chemoprophylaxis, namely type, dosage, timing, and length.
Subject(s)
Humans , Abdominoplasty , Body Mass Index , Chemoprevention , Drainage , Enoxaparin , Hematoma , Hemostasis , Mortality , Pulmonary Embolism , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Surgery, Plastic , Thromboembolism , Thrombosis , Venous Thromboembolism , Venous ThrombosisABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism, a spectrum of diseases ranging from deep venous thrombosis to pulmonary embolism, is a major source of morbidity and mortality. The majority of cases described in plastic surgery involve abdominoplasty. Risk assessment and prophylaxis are paramount in such patients. General recommendations were recently developed, but the evidence in the literature was insufficient to prepare exhaustive guidelines regarding the medication, dosage, timing, or length of the prophylaxis. METHODS: A thromboprophylaxis protocol was developed for patients undergoing abdominoplasty. The protocol consisted of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative measures. Enoxaparin was administered as chemoprophylaxis in selected patients. The study involved 253 patients. The patients were analyzed for age, body mass index, enoxaparin dosage, risk factors, and complications. RESULTS: Deep venous thrombosis was documented in two cases (0.8%). No pulmonary embolism occurred. Three patients (1.2%) presented mild subcutaneous abdominal hematoma within the first postoperative week that spontaneously resorbed with neither aesthetic nor functional complications. Two patients (0.8%) presented severe hematoma requiring surgical re-intervention for drainage and hemostasis revision. Statistical analysis showed no significant correlation between enoxaparin dosage and hematoma (P=0.18) or deep venous thrombosis (P=0.61). CONCLUSIONS: The described thromboprophylaxis protocol proved to be effective in the prevention of thrombotic events, with an acceptable risk of hemorrhagic complications. Furthermore, it provides new evidence regarding the currently debated variables of chemoprophylaxis, namely type, dosage, timing, and length.