A "Green" Approach to Secondary Reconstruction: The Concept of the Recycle Flap and a Classification. Issue 2 (February 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sadigh, Parviz Lionel; Hsieh, Ching-Hua; Feng, Guan-Ming; Shih, Hsiang-Shun; Jeng, Seng-Feng
• Is Part Of: Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Volume 135:Issue 2(2015:Feb.)
• Publication Date: 2015-02
• Subjects: Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; 617.95205
• DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000996
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0032-1052

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Harvesting soft tissue from a previously transferred flap allows for flap reshaping and simultaneously raising tissue for a secondary procedure. This is done without increasing the number of donor sites and is therefore a very attractive reconstructive option. Methods: Between March of 2011 and October of 2013, the authors performed 60 recycle flaps on 60 patients (three women and 57 men) who had undergone previous flap reconstruction (52 free and eight pedicled). The recycle flaps were raised as either random pattern or perforator flaps. Mean time between primary reconstruction and the recycle procedure was 28.3 months (range, 6 months to 20 years), and the mean age of our patients was 57 years (range, 21 to 78 years). Results: Of 60 recycle flaps raised for secondary reconstruction, 58 survived completely (97 percent). Two cases of total flap necrosis were encountered resulting from pedicle damage during attempted perforator dissection within a previously irradiated flap. Twenty-nine flaps were raised as random pattern flaps, 29 were raised as pedicled perforator flaps (20 with perforator skeletonization), and two were raised as free perforator flaps. Conclusions: There are a number of ways to safely "recycle" the soft tissues used in a previous reconstruction. This provides new tissue for a secondary procedure while debulking and refining the primary flap. Raising perforator flaps from previously irradiated flaps is, however, technically challenging and carries a high risk of flap necrosis (40 percent in our series) and should be advised against. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.