Lumbar Perforator Flaps for Coverage of Extensive Defects With Osteomyelitis. Issue 1 (January 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schaffer, Clara; Guillier, David; Raffoul, Wassim; di Summa, Pietro G.
• Is Part Of: Annals of plastic surgery. Volume 86:Issue 1(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-01
• Subjects: lumbar artery perforator flap -- lumbar defect -- osteomyelitis; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; 617.95205
• DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002399
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0148-7043

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: Lumbar osteomyelitis is a rare, although serious condition if not appropriately treated, potentially leading to neurologic complications, such as radiculopathy. Traditionally, studies have suggested the preferred use of muscle or myocutaneous flaps to prevent recurrent infections. However, late evidence suggests that radical debridement and dead space obliteration are more important than the type of flap. The lumbar perforator flap is a reliable local option with low donor site morbidity. It is a powerful tool for local trunk reconstruction, but its use in case of osteomyelitis is scarcely described. We aimed to report long-term outcomes of lumbar perforator flaps to cover lumbar soft tissue defects with chronic osteomyelitis. Material and Methods: This retrospective investigation was performed on a prospectively maintained database including 7 consecutive patients (10 flaps), all presenting extensive defects of the posterior midline at L2-S1 level (defect size 287 ± 136 cm 2 [average ± SD]). Four patients presented defects after recurrent tumor resection, whereas in 2 patients, the defect was due to vascular jeopardy of internal iliac arteries with consequent necrosis. Last defect derived from debridement of a neglected wound in a paraplegic patient. All patients had concomitant bone infection. Infectious details and postoperative complications were recorded. Results: Patients were in general poor medical condition (including peripheral arterial disease, hypertension, diabetes, or a combination of these). Eight flaps were raised as propeller perforator, whereas 2 as V-Y perforator. One propelled flap had venous congestion on postoperative day 1 and required a revision surgery to be converted to V-Y. Subsequent partial flap necrosis was treated conservatively. One patient presented a wound dehiscence that required surgical revision. All flaps were closed primarily except for 1 patient whose flap presented a mild intraoperative congestion, which was treated by delayed closure on postoperative day 6, with uneventful outcome. Time to complete healing was 29 ± 17 days (mean ± SD). No flap loss occurred, and all patients benefited from effective coverage at a mean follow-up of 20 months. Conclusions: Lumbar perforator flap is a reliable option to cover large soft tissue defects in the lumbar area despite chronic osteomyelitis, with low morbidity and acceptable cosmetic outcome. Abstract : Supplemental digital content is available in the text.