ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Flap reconstruction with perforator, fasciocutaneous, muscular, and/or free microvascular flaps is utilized to cover wound defects and improve vascularization and antibiotic/nutrient delivery. Flap use in revision procedures for total knee arthroplasty has been explored previously; however, current data are limited and studies comparing healing and complication rates between different flap types are lacking. METHODS: A literature review was performed using PubMed on 13 January 2022. Studies were included if they reported healing and complication rates for either gastrocnemius, rectus abdominis, latissimus dorsi, fasciocutaneous, chimeric, or gracilis flaps in the setting of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). RESULTS: The final cohort included gastrocnemius (n = 421, healing rate 73.8%, complication rate 59.9%), gracilis (n = 9, healing rate 93%, complication rate 55.6%), latissimus dorsi (n = 41, healing rate 67%, complication rate 46.3%), rectus abdominis (n = 3, healing rate 100%, complication rate 0%), fasciocutaneous (n = 78, healing rate 70%, complication rate 19.2%), and chimeric flaps (n = 4, healing rate 100%, complication rate 25%). There was no significant difference when comparing healing rates across flap types (p = 0.39). There was a significant difference when comparing complication rates across flap types (p < 0.0001), with a significant difference being noted between gastrocnemius and fasciocutaneous complication rates (p < 0.0001). All other comparisons between flap types by complication rate were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Gastrocnemius flaps are the workhorse flap in the setting of revision TKA, as evidenced by this review. Healing rates did not vary significantly across flap types, which suggests that determining the appropriate flap for coverage of soft-tissue defects in revision TKA should be driven by defect size and location as well as physician experience and patient tolerance.
