桥式交叉胫后动脉或腓动脉穿支皮瓣修复对侧下肢软组织缺损

REPAIR OF SOFT TISSUE DEFECTS OF LOWER EXTREMITY BY USING CROSS-BRIDGE CONTRALATERAL DISTALLY BASED POSTERIOR TIBIAL ARTERY PERFORATOR FLAPS OR PERONEAL ARTERY PERFORATOR FLAPS

目的探讨采用健侧逆行胫后动脉或腓动脉穿支皮瓣桥式交叉修复下肢软组织缺损的可行性。方法 2007年8月-2010年2月,收治15例下肢软组织缺损患者。男14例,女1例;年龄25～48岁,平均33.9岁。交通事故伤8例,机器伤4例,重物砸伤3例。1例踝部植皮后遗留22 cm×8 cm大小的瘢痕(伤后35个月);余14例软组织缺损位于踝部1例,小腿中下1/3处12例,小腿中上1/3处1例;创面范围8 cm×6 cm～26 cm×15 cm;受伤至入院时间为4～28 d,平均14.8 d。采用逆行胫后动脉穿支皮瓣(9例)或腓动脉穿支皮瓣(6例)桥式交叉修复,皮瓣切取范围为10 cm×8 cm～28 cm×17 cm。供区创面两端直接缝合,中部残留创面取游离皮片植皮修复。术后5～6周行皮瓣断蒂。结果术后2例腓动脉穿支皮瓣分别出现远端轻度淤血及边缘部分坏死,经换药后均成活;其余皮瓣断蒂后均顺利成活,受区创面Ⅰ期愈合。供区切口Ⅰ期愈合,植皮均成活。15例均获随访,随访时间7～35个月,平均19.5个月。皮瓣质地、色泽与受区相近,外形较满意。末次随访时根据美国矫形足踝协会(AOFAS)踝与后足功能评分标准,评分为81～92分,平均87.3分。结论健侧逆行胫后动脉或腓动脉穿支皮瓣桥式交叉可较好修复对侧小腿或足部大面积皮肤软组织缺损,术中无需吻合血管,血管危象发生率低,手术成功率高。

Objective To discuss the feasibility of repairing soft tissue defects of lower extremity with a distally based posterior tibial artery perforator cross-bridge flap or a distally based peroneal artery perforator cross-bridge flap. Methods Between August 2007 and February 2010, 15 patients with soft tissue defect of the legs or feet were treated. There were 14 males and 1 female with a mean age of 33.9 years （range, 25-48 years）. The injury causes included traffic accident in 8 cases, crush injury by machine in 4 cases, and crush injury by heavy weights in 3 cases. There was a scar （22 cm × 8 cm at size） left on the ankle after the skin graft in 1 patient （after 35 months of traffic accident）. And in the other 14 patients, the defect locations were the ankle in 1 case, the upper part of the lower leg in 1 case, and the lower part of the lower leg in 12 cases; the defect sizes ranged from 8 cm × 6 cm to 26 cm × 15 cm; the mean interval from injury to admission was 14.8 days （range, 4-28 days）. Defects were repaired with distally based posterior tibial artery perforator cross-bridge flaps in 9 cases and distally based peroneal artery perforator cross-bridge flaps in 6 cases, and the flap sizes ranged from 10 cm ~ 8 cm to 28 crn ~ 17 cm. The donor sites were sutured directly, but a split-thickness skin graft was used in the middle part. The pedicles of all flaps were cut at 5-6 weeks postoperatively. Results Distal mild congestion and partial necrosis at the edge of the skin flap occurred in 2 cases and were cured after dressing change, and the other flaps survived. After cutting the pedicles, all flaps survived, and wounds of recipient sites healed by first intention. Incisions of the donor sites healed by first intention, and skin graft survived. Fifteen patients were followed up 7-35 months with an average of 19.5 months. The color and texture of the flaps were similar to these of the recipient site. According to American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society （AOFAS） ankle and hindfoot score system, the mean score was 87.3 （range, 81-92）. Conclusion A distally based posterior tibial artery perforator cross-bridge flap or a distally based peroneal artery perforator cross-bridge flap is an optimal alternative for the reconstruction of the serious tissue defect of contralateral leg or foot because of no microvascular anastomosis necessary, low vascular crisis risk, and high survival rate.