AI Article Synopsis

  • * Involving 39 patients over a follow-up period of at least one year, results showed all flaps succeeded, with minimal complications and no significant difference in pain or functional scores between the groups.
  • * Overall, both types of flaps demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes, indicating that either can be suitable for foot reconstruction in patients with large defects.

Article Abstract

Background: Instep flaps are commonly used for the reconstruction of weight-bearing areas of the foot. However, in cases of large defects or damage to the instep area, non-instep flaps such as reverse sural flaps (RSF) or free anterolateral thigh flaps (ALTF) can be employed. Previous studies have primarily focused on heel reconstruction when comparing different flaps, without considering the forefoot. This study aims to verify the clinical outcomes of these flaps and determine the appropriate donor site for weight-bearing areas of the foot including forefoot reconstruction.

Methods: In a retrospective study, 39 patients who had undergone flap reconstruction of weight-bearing area defects in the foot with a follow-up period of ≥1 year were included. The patients were categorized into two groups: Group A (n = 19) using instep flaps, and Group B (n = 20) using non-instep flap including RSFs and ALTFs. Surgical outcomes were assessed based on the success of the flap, the presence of partial necrosis, the number of additional surgeries, and complications related to the donor site. Clinical evaluation included visual analogue scale (VAS) and American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, and the occurrence of ulcers.

Results: All flaps were successful, while partial necrosis occurred in one case in Group B. There were three reclosures after flap border debridement in both groups and one donor site debridement in Group A. The VAS scores during weight-bearing were 2.0 ± 1.1 and 2.2 ± 1.5 for Groups A and B, respectively (p = .716). The AOFAS scores were 52.8 ± 6.8 and 50.2 ± 12.7 for Groups A and B, respectively (p = .435). The occurrence of ulcers was 0.4 ± 0.9 times for Group A and 0.3 ± 0.7 times for Group B, with no significant difference between the two groups (p = .453).

Conclusion: There was no difference in clinical outcomes between the types of flaps after reconstruction of the forefoot and hindfoot. Therefore, it is recommended to choose the appropriate flap based on factors such as the size of the defect, its location, and vascular status rather than the type of flap.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/micr.31209DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

reconstruction weight-bearing
12
donor site
12
flaps
9
non-instep flap
8
flap reconstruction
8
instep flaps
8
weight-bearing areas
8
areas foot
8
clinical outcomes
8
partial necrosis
8

Similar Publications

Functional reconstruction following bilateral amputation of the manus and pes in a cat with frostbite injury.

Can Vet J

January 2025

Guardian Veterinary Centre, 5620 99th Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta T6E 1V2 (Cormillot); VCA Canada, Guardian Veterinary Centre, 5620 99th Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta T6E 1V2 (Fowler).

This case report describes metacarpophalangeal (MCP)- and metatarsophalangeal (MTP)-level amputation and reconstruction of all 4 paws of a young female domestic shorthair cat. All 4 paws, the ears, and the distal portion of the tail underwent severe frostbite injury resulting in tissue death. Following MCP and MTP amputation, weight-bearing surface reconstruction was achieved using metacarpal and metatarsal paw-pad advancement flaps.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Implant failure of the Compress prosthesis: a case report.

J Med Case Rep

January 2025

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya University Hospital, 65 Tsurumai, Showa, Nagoya, Aichi, 466-8550, Japan.

Background: The Compress is designed to achieve bone formation and stability by applying pressure at the bone-implant interface, minimizing the likelihood of aseptic loosening, which is a complication of stem implants. Herein, we report two cases of implant failure using the Compress.

Case Presentation: Case 1 describes a 36 year-old Japanese man who underwent extraarticular tumor resection, Compress arthroplasty, and reconstruction with a gastrocnemius flap after preoperative chemotherapy for a secondary malignant giant cell tumor in the right distal femur.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: An all-inside endoscopic flexor hallucis longus (FHL) tendon transfer is indicated for the treatment of chronic, full-thickness Achilles tendon defects. The aim of this procedure is to restore function of the gastrocnemius-soleus complex while avoiding the wound complications associated with open procedures.

Description: This procedure can be performed through 2 endoscopic portals, a posteromedial portal (the working portal) and a posterolateral portal (the visualization portal).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Following lower limb amputation residuum skin from the lower leg is used to reconstruct the residual limb. Unlike skin on the sole of the foot (plantar skin), leg skin is not inherently load bearing. Despite this, leg skin is required to be load bearing in the prosthetic socket.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

In modern knee arthroplasty, surgeons increasingly aim for individualised implant selection based on data-driven decisions to improve patient satisfaction rates. The identification of an implant design that optimally fits to a patient's native kinematic patterns and functional requirements could provide a basis towards subject-specific phenotyping. The goal of this study was to achieve a first step towards identifying easily accessible and intuitive features that allow for discrimination between implant designs based on kinematic data.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!