The Preferred Reconstructive Choice for a Lower Third Tibial Exposure Defect: An Online Survey of 356 Microsurgeons

Abstract Background  One of the most challenging yet common areas in reconstructive surgery is the closure of defects in the lower leg. Surgeons can choose from several reconstructive options including local and free flaps. The aim of this study was to understand the reconstructive strategy for lower leg defects of different microsurgeons around the world by harnessing the power of social media and online questionnaires. Methods  A case of a patient with an exposed plate over distal tibial fracture was presented via an online questionnaire distributed on various social media platforms. A total of 369 international microsurgeons replied with their preferred treatment choice. The data were analyzed according to geographic area, microsurgical training, seniority, and subspecialty. Results  Among all the respondents ( n  = 369), 64% would have opted for a free flap reconstruction, while the remaining 36% would have opted for a local/pedicle flap. In the group that would have opted for a free flap, 63% would reconstruct the defect using a free fasciocutaneous flap, while the remaining 37% would have used a free muscle flap. In the local flap group, 60% would have used a local perforator while 30% would have chosen a conventional local flap. While North American and European microsurgeons had a clear preference toward free flaps, Asian, Middle Eastern, African, and South American surgeons were evenly divided between local and free flaps. Conclusion  In this study, we provide a current global overview of the reconstructive strategies for a lower limb with skin defect and bone or prosthesis exposure. We hope that this will be able to help global microsurgeons and patients worldwide.

[1]  Wei F. Chen,et al.  International Microsurgery Club Webinar Series—Bridging the Knowledge Gap during the COVID-19 Pandemic , 2021, Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery.

[2]  E. Santamaria,et al.  Master Series Microsurgery for Residents: Results from a Comprehensive Survey of a Multitudinous Online Course during COVID-19 Pandemic , 2021, Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery.

[3]  Evelyn Ting-Hsuan Tang,et al.  International Microsurgery Club: An Effective Online Collaboration System , 2020, Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery.

[4]  C. Hirche,et al.  Comparison of Fasciocutaneous and Muscle-based Free Flaps for Soft Tissue Reconstruction of the Upper Extremity , 2019, Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open.

[5]  M. Atlan,et al.  Muscle versus Fasciocutaneous Free Flaps in Lower Extremity Traumatic Reconstruction: A Multicenter Outcomes Analysis. , 2018, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[6]  C. Tzou,et al.  Use of Social Media and an Online Survey to Discuss Complex Reconstructive Surgery: A Case of Upper Lip Reconstruction with 402 Responses from International Microsurgeons , 2018, Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery.

[7]  M. Elbadawy,et al.  A prospective randomized cost billing comparison of local fasciocutaneous perforator versus free Gracilis flap reconstruction for lower limb in a developing economy. , 2016, Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS.

[8]  Andrea Faber,et al.  Flaps And Reconstructive Surgery , 2016 .

[9]  A. Pittenger INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN AND ASSESSMENT The Use of Social Networking to Improve the Quality of Interprofessional Education , 2013 .

[10]  R. Ruberg Foot and Ankle Reconstruction: Pedicled Muscle Flaps versus Free Flaps and the Role of Diabetes , 2013 .

[11]  F. Wei,et al.  The anterolateral thigh - Vastus lateralis conjoint flap for complex defects of the lower limb. , 2012, Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS.

[12]  P. Tos,et al.  Perforator-based propeller flaps treating loss of substance in the lower limb , 2011, Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology.

[13]  Cheng-Hung Lin,et al.  Versatility of the pedicled peroneal artery perforator flaps for soft-tissue coverage of the lower leg and foot defects. , 2011, Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS.

[14]  M. Cifci,et al.  Comparison of free anterolateral thigh flaps and free muscle‐musculocutaneous flaps in soft tissue reconstruction of lower extremity , 2009, Microsurgery.

[15]  R. Bluebond-Langner,et al.  Functional outcomes of posttraumatic lower limb salvage: a pilot study of anterolateral thigh perforator flaps versus muscle flaps. , 2009, The Journal of trauma.

[16]  S. Mardini,et al.  Muscle versus Nonmuscle Flaps in the Reconstruction of Chronic Osteomyelitis Defects , 2006, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[17]  Yu-Te Lin,et al.  Outcome Comparison between Free Muscle and Free Fasciocutaneous Flaps for Reconstruction of Distal Third and Ankle Traumatic Open Tibial Fractures , 2006, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[18]  S. Aiso,et al.  Accompanying Arteries of the Cutaneous Veins and Cutaneous Nerves in the Extremities: Anatomical Study and a Concept of the Venoadipofascial and/or Neuroadipofascial Pedicled Fasciocutaneous Flap , 1998, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[19]  N. Imanishi,et al.  Three‐Dimensional Analysis and Classification of Arteries in the Skin and Subcutaneous Adipofascial Tissue by Computer Graphics Imaging , 1998, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[20]  R. J. Fix,et al.  Muscle flap coverage for the lower extremity. , 1991, Clinics in plastic surgery.

[21]  I. Koshima,et al.  Inferior epigastric artery skin flaps without rectus abdominis muscle. , 1989, British journal of plastic surgery.

[22]  H. Nakajima,et al.  A New Concept of Vascular Supply to the Skin and Classification of Skin Flaps According to Their Vascularization , 1986, Annals of plastic surgery.

[23]  B. Pontén The fasciocutaneous flap: its use in soft tissue defects of the lower leg. , 1981, British journal of plastic surgery.