Search

Background Recipient vessels proximal to the zone of injury have traditionally been preferred for lower extremity reconstruction. However, more recent data have shown mixed outcomes when performing anastomoses distal to the zone of injury. We investigated the impact of recipient vessel location on free flap outcomes. Methods Retrospective review (1979-2016); 312 soft tissue free flaps for open tibia fractures met inclusion criteria. Flap characteristics and perioperative outcomes were examined. Systematic review identified articles evaluating anastomosis location and flap outcomes; pooled data analysis was performed. Results More anastomoses were performed proximal to the zone of injury (80.7%) than distal (19.3%). Distal anastomoses were not associated with increased take back rates (19.6%) compared with proximal (23.8%) anastomoses (p = 0.356). Regression analysis comparing proximal and distal anastomoses found no difference in partial flap failures (7.4% vs 11.9%; p = 0.978) or total flap failures (9.3% vs 9.3%; p = 0.815)when controlling for the presence of arterial injury, flap type, and time from injury to coverage. Systematic review yielded 11 articles with 1,245 proximal and 127 distal anastomoses for comparison. Pooled analysis (p = 0.58) and weighted comparative analysis (p = 0.39) found no difference in flap failure rates between proximal and distal groups. Conclusion Our results are congruent with the current lower extremity literature and demonstrate no difference in perioperative complication rates between anastomoses performed proximal or distal to the zone of injury. These findings suggest that anastomotic location choice should be based primarily on recipient vessel quality/ flow and ease of access/exposure rather than orientation relative to the zone of injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:  Microvascular reconstruction of the lower extremity has the highest reported complication and flap failure rates of any anatomical region. Despite widespread adoption of the mechanical anastomotic venous coupler and encouraging results in other anatomical regions, there are limited reports examining its use in the lower extremity. This study compares outcomes between coupled and hand-sewn venous anastomoses in traumatic lower extremity reconstruction., Methods:  Retrospective review of our institutional flap registry from 1979 to 2016 identified soft tissue free flaps performed for the reconstruction of Gustilo type IIIB/IIIC open tibial fractures. Patient demographics, flap characteristics, use of a venous anastomotic coupler, and perioperative outcomes were examined. Analysis was performed using chi-square and Student's t -tests., Results:  A total of 361 patients received a microvascular free flap for coverage of a Gustilo type IIIB or IIIC tibial fracture following traumatic injury. After excluding cases that lacked adequate information on coupler use, 358 free flaps were included in the study. There were 72 (20%) free flaps performed using a venous coupler and 286 (80%) performed with hand-sewn venous anastomoses. There were comparable rates of major complications (22.2 vs. 26.1%; p  = 0.522), total flap failure (6.5%, vs. 10.2%; p  = 0.362), and partial flap failure (9.7 vs. 12.2%; p  = 0.579) between venous coupler and hand-sewn anastomoses, respectively. Furthermore, use of the venous coupler was not associated with increased rates of operative take backs (22.8 vs. 23.0%; p  = 0.974). However, reconstructions performed using a venous coupler were significantly more likely to have a second venous anastomosis performed (37.5 vs. 21.3%; p  = 0.004)., Conclusion:  Complication and flap failure rates were similar between reconstructions performed with a venous coupler and those performed with hand-sewn venous anastomoses. These findings suggest that use of the venous anastomotic coupler is safe and effective in lower extremity reconstruction, with comparable outcomes to conventional sutured anastomoses., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)