Management of Posttraumatic Posterior Elbow Defects by Nonmicrosurgical Reconstruction.

Introduction Reconstruction of posterior defects is challenging due to the quality and uniqueness of the excess skin at the elbow that is durable, thick, pliable, and without much subcutaneous tissue. The goal of reconstruction is to cover the elbow defects with a durable skin cover that will facilitate full passive range of motion. In this era of microsurgery, free tissue transfer is feasible for almost any defect. However, in this article, we discuss various locoregional and pedicled flap options and the protocol followed at our institute to tackle posttraumatic posterior elbow defects. Materials and Methods This is a retrospective analysis of 48 patients with posttraumatic posterior elbow defects admitted from January 2012 to February 2020. Posterior elbow defects were assessed according to the size and location and managed with a nonmicrosurgical reconstruction. Results Of 48 patients, 32 were managed with nonmicrosurgical flaps. Eighteen patients had large defects and 14 had small defects. Reverse lateral forearm flap was the workhorse flap for defect coverage. Of 32 flaps, nine developed complications; however, no patient had total flap necrosis. Conclusion Posterior elbow defects are a difficult problem to tackle. To achieve optimal results, all patients with elbow trauma should be attended and managed by orthopaedic and plastic surgeons in collaboration for optimal results. We believe that most of these defects can be resurfaced by nonmicrosurgical reconstruction with proper planning and execution and their utility cannot be understated.

The Reach of the Gastrocnemius Musculocutaneous Flap: How High Is High?

BACKGROUND: Gastrocnemius muscle and musculocutaneous flaps are very versatile and one of the commonly used flaps for lower extremity reconstruction. There is significant literature available on the use of these flaps. However, we feel that the potential of the gastrocnemius musculocutaneous (GMC) flaps has not yet been fully explored in terms of increasing their reach, viability and arc of rotation. An attempt is made to refine the technique of flap harvestation to optimize outcomes of this versatile flap. METHODS: Six patients of complex lower limb defects were managed using the GMC flaps. Harvesting of the flap was always initiated from the posterior midline to include the proximal sural pedicle, sural nerve, short saphenous vein and the muscle belly of either the medial or the lateral gastrocnemius muscle along with the cutaneous paddle. All the flaps were islanded and denervated. The origin of the gastrocnemius muscle was detached in all cases to increase the reach of this flap. RESULTS: The flap can reliably and comfortably cover defects from middle third-lower third junction of thigh and the entire posterior aspect of the thigh. Such a local option offers relatively simple but more cost-effective approach to complex clinical problem with tolerable impairment of the donor site. CONCLUSION: The GMC flap can be considered as a worthwhile alternative to free-tissue transfer for limb salvage.