COVERAGE CONSIDERATIONS AND OUTCOME ANALYSIS OF RECONSTRUCTION OF POST TRAUMATIC SOFT TISSUE DEFECTS AROUND THE ELBOW

Abstract

Introduction: Major crush injury of elbow joint following trauma with extensive injury to skin & soft tissue, bone, tendon, nerves and vessels remains a challenge to the reconstructive surgeon. Purpose of this study is to nd out whether the size of the defect, type of ap used and the location of the soft tissue defect inuence the outcome of soft tissue reconstruction. Material and methods: A prospective study was performed in all patients with soft tissue defects around the elbow in need of ap cover at Ganga Medical Centre Coimbatore, Tamilnadu India from April 2014 to December 2015.Patients demographics, defect size, location, type of ap used, complications and long – term outcomes analysed. Patients Mayo elbow performance score and Likert scale score were recorded for analysis of functional and aesthetic outcome respectively. The Kruskal wallis test was used for statistical comparison. Results: Forty three aps were performed primarily for coverage in forty patients. Three patients required two primary aps for reconstruction. The aps used in our study included 14 local fasciocutaneous aps (32.5%); 20 pedicled aps both locoregional and distant (46.5%) and 9 2 2 Anterolateral thigh free aps (20.9%) The average defect size was 151 cm . For local fasciocutaneous ap the average defect size was 44.7cm , 2 2 2 2 2 (range, 4-120 cm ), distant pedicled ap was181 cm (range 24- 600 cm ) and for the ALT free ap was 252.2 cm (range 80-450 cm ). Conclusion: The defect size is the main determinant of the type of ap used and their outcomes.