ABSTRACT
Muscle and musculocutaneous flaps have been used reliably in reconstruction of soft-tissue defects for many years. Previous experimental studies have shown musculocutaneous flaps to be superior to the random pattern and fasciocutaneous flaps in the management of infected wounds. Over the past decade, perforator flaps have gained acceptance as alternative methods of reconstruction in the clinical setting that can decrease donor-site morbidity and hospital stay, and increase patient satisfaction. The authors theorized that perforator flaps may be able to handle infected wounds better than random pattern and fasciocutaneous flaps because their blood supply is essentially the same as many of their musculocutaneous counterparts. The goal of this study was to compare the S1 perforator-based skin flap and latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flap in the dorsal flank of the rabbit with the introduction of bacteria to simulate both superficial and deep wound infection. Measurements of oxygen tension and regional perfusion index were performed on both types of flaps to ascertain their viability and capacity to heal. The authors found no statistical significance between latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous and S1 perforator flaps in the rabbit with respect to superficial and deep wound infections. The regional perfusion index was calculated for postoperative days 1, 2, and 4. No statistically significant difference between the two flaps using the regional perfusion index could be identified. Additionally, regional perfusion for both types of flaps was greater than 0.6, indicating that their capacity to heal wounds is similar.
