ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this investigation was to systematically review the current literature to provide the best data for indications, outcomes, survival, and complication rates of pedicled propeller perforator flaps for upper body defects. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review for articles published from January 1991 to December 2011 was performed using the PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Databases. Articles without available full-text, single case reports or papers with excessive missing data were excluded. Papers reporting pedicle-perforator (propeller) flaps used for lower extremity reconstruction were excluded from meta-analysis. RESULTS: From the initial 1,736 studies our search yielded, 343 studies qualified for the second stage of selection. Of 117 full-text reports screened, 41 studies, met the definitive inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of the selected 41 articles, 26 were case series, original papers or retrospective reviews and were included, whereas 15 were case report papers and therefore were excluded. Two hundred ninety-five propeller flaps were reported to have been used in a total of 283 patients. Indications include repair of trauma-induced injuries, post-trauma revision surgery, cancer resection, chronic infection, pressure sores, and chronic ulcers with a major complication rate (3.3%) comparable to that of free flaps. No specific exclusion criteria for the procedure were presented in the studies reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: Pedicled propeller flaps are a versatile and safe reconstructive option that are easy and quick to raise and that provide unlimited clinical solutions because of the theoretical possibility of harvesting them based on any perforator chosen among those classified in the body.
Subject(s)
Humans , Free Tissue Flaps , Lower Extremity , Perforator Flap , Pressure Ulcer , Retrospective Studies , Surgical Flaps , UlcerABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Microsurgical techniques are considered standard procedures in reconstructive surgery. Although microsurgery by itself is defined as surgery aided by optical magnification, there are no guidelines for determining in which clinical situations a microscope or loupe should be used. Therefore, we conducted standardized experiments to objectively assess the impact of optical magnification in microsurgery. METHODS: Sixteen participants of microsurgical training courses had to complete 2 sets of experiments. Each set had to be performed with an unaided eye, surgical loupes, and a regular operating microscope. The first set of experiments included coaptation of a chicken femoral nerve, and the second set consisted of anastomosing porcine coronary arteries. Evaluation of the sutured nerves and vessels were performed by 2 experienced microsurgeons using an operating microscope. RESULTS: The 16 participants of the study completed all of the experiments. The nerve coaptation and vascular anastomoses exercises showed a direct relationship of error frequency and lower optical magnification, meaning that the highest number of microsurgical errors occurred with the unaided eye. For nerve coaptation, there was a strong relationship (P<0.05) between the number of mistakes and magnification, and this relationship was very strong (P<0.01) for vascular anastomoses. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to prove that microsurgical success is directly related to optical magnification. The human eye's ability to discriminate potentially important anatomical structures is limited, which might be detrimental for clinical results. Although not legally mandatory, surgeries such as reparative surgery after hand trauma should be conducted with magnifying devices for achieving optimal patient outcomes.