Use of the cross-leg distally based sural artery flap for the reconstruction of complex lower extremity defects

Cross-leg flaps are a useful reconstructive option for complex lower limb defects when free flaps cannot be performed owing to vessel damage. We describe the use of the extended distally based sural artery flap in a cross-leg fashion for lower extremity coverage in three patients. To maximise the viability of these extended flaps, a delay was performed by raising them in a bipedicled fashion before gradual division of the tip over 5 to 7 days for cross-leg transfer. Rigid coupling of the lower limbs with external fixators was critical in preventing flap avulsion and to promote neovascular takeover. The pedicle was gradually divided over the ensuing 7 to 14 days before full flap inset and removal of the external fixators. In all three patients, the flaps survived with no complications and successful coverage of the critical defect was achieved. One patient developed a grade 2 pressure injury on his heel that resolved with conservative dressings. The donor sites and external fixator pin wounds healed well, with no functional morbidity. The cross-leg extended distally based sural artery flap is a reliable reconstructive option in challenging scenarios. Adequate flap delay, manoeuvres to reduce congestion, and postoperative rigid immobilization are key to a successful outcome.

Maintenance of negative-pressure wound therapy while undergoing hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

BACKGROUND: Both negative wound pressure therapy (NPWT) and hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) are useful modalities in the treatment of problem wounds. However, none of the commercially available portable negative-pressure devices have been certified safe for use in a recompression chamber. Thus, the NPWT device is removed while the patient undergoes HBOT. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that wound negative pressure can be effectively and safely maintained during HBOT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a small, prospective, randomised crossover trial, we used commonly available clinical materials to connect the NPWT suction tubing to the negative suction generating device in the hyperbaric chamber. Six patients each underwent one HBOT session with continuous NPWT and one HBOT session without concurrent NPWT. We assessed the patient's pain score, the amount of exudate aspirated by the NPWT during HBOT, and the appearance of the wound dressing after each session was assessed in a blinded manner. RESULTS: There were no differences in pain scores between the two HBOT sessions. The amount of exudate aspirated during HBOT with NPWT ranged from 5 to 12 ml. Five of the six patients had a better appearance scoring of their dressing when NPWT was maintained during HBOT (P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: We successfully demonstrated a simple design that allows the maintenance of NPWT during HBOT without causing additional pain, and with continued extraction of exudate. The maintenance of NPWT during HBOT also allowed the dressing to be maintained undisturbed.