Comparison of instep and non‐instep flap in the reconstruction of the weight‐bearing portion of the forefoot and heel

Author:

Lee Jae Hoon1ORCID,Ku Ki Hyeok2ORCID,Kim Jin Hyung34ORCID,Baek Jong Hun4ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery Yeson Hospital Bucheon South Korea

2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Kyung Hee University Seoul South Korea

3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery Kyung Hee University Hospital, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University Seoul South Korea

4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery Kyung Hee University Hospital, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University Seoul South Korea

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundInstep 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsAll 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).ConclusionThere 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.

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3