Focus on anatomical aspects of soft tissue coverage options in elbow reconstruction: an updating review

Free flap reconstruction of elbow soft tissue defects: Lessons learned from 15 years of experience

BACKGROUND

The elbow is a complex joint that is vital for proper function of the upper extremity. Reconstruction of soft tissue defects over the joint space remains challenging, and outcomes following free tissue transfer remain underreported in the literature. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the rate of limb salvage, joint function, and clinical complications following microvascular free flap coverage of the elbow.

METHODS

This retrospective case series utilized surgical logs of the senior authors (Stephen J Kovach and L Scott Levin) to identify patients who underwent microvascular free flap elbow reconstruction between January 2007 and December 2021. Patient demographics and medical history were collected from the medical chart. Operative notes were reviewed to determine the type of flap procedure performed. The achievement of definitive soft tissue coverage, joint function, and limb salvage status at 1 year was determined from postoperative visit notes.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients (14 male, 7 female, median age 43) underwent free tissue transfer for coverage of soft tissue defects of the elbow. The most common indication for free tissue transfer was traumatic elbow fracture with soft tissue loss (n = 12, [57%]). Among the 21 free flaps performed, 71% (n = 15) were anterolateral thigh flaps, 14% (n = 3) were latissimus dorsi flaps, and 5% (n = 1) were transverse rectus abdominis flaps. The mean flap size was 107.5 cm2. Flap success was 100% (n = 21). The following postoperative wound complications were reported: surgical site infection (n = 1, [5%]); partial dehiscence (n = 5, [24%]); seroma (n = 2, [10%]); donor-site hematoma (n = 1, [5%]); and delayed wound healing (n = 5, [24%]). At 1 year, all 21 patients achieved limb salvage and definitive soft tissue coverage. Of the 17 patients with functional data available, 47% (n = 8) had regained at least 120 degrees of elbow flexion/extension. All patients had greater than 1 year of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Microvascular free flap reconstruction is a safe and effective method of providing definitive soft tissue coverage of elbow defects, as evidenced by high rates of limb salvage and functional recovery following reconstruction.

Elbow coverage by the descending superficial radial artery flap: a clinical series and literature review

PURPOSE

Soft tissue coverage of the posterior aspect of the elbow requires thin and flexible flaps to adapt to movements without constraining them. The authors report a clinical series of reconstruction by the descending superficial radial artery (DSRA) flap, a proximal forearm perforator flap which use is rarely reported in the literature.

METHODS

Seven patients with a mean age of 50 years (range 24-88 years) were treated for a posterior elbow defect using the DSRA flap with an adipofascial pedicle. The flap was tunneled to the defect in the subcutaneous tissue or raised using the racket-like technique to avoid any pedicle compression.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 3.3 months (range 1-12 months). A partial necrosis of the skin paddle occurred in an 88-year-old patient. In the other cases, the flap evolution was straightforward. At the last follow-up, the appearance of the flaps was satisfactory in terms of color, texture, and thickness. No complications were observed at the donor site.

CONCLUSION

The DSRA flap with an adipofascial pedicle is a simple, reliable, and reproducible method for reconstruction of small to moderate-sized defect on the posterior aspect of the elbow. Its use is easier for defects on the posterolateral side, but it can reach the medial olecranon.

Management of Posttraumatic Posterior Elbow Defects by Nonmicrosurgical Reconstruction

Introduction  Reconstruction of posterior defects is challenging due to the quality and uniqueness of the excess skin at the elbow that is durable, thick, pliable, and without much subcutaneous tissue. The goal of reconstruction is to cover the elbow defects with a durable skin cover that will facilitate full passive range of motion. In this era of microsurgery, free tissue transfer is feasible for almost any defect. However, in this article, we discuss various locoregional and pedicled flap options and the protocol followed at our institute to tackle posttraumatic posterior elbow defects.

Materials and Methods  This is a retrospective analysis of 48 patients with posttraumatic posterior elbow defects admitted from January 2012 to February 2020. Posterior elbow defects were assessed according to the size and location and managed with a nonmicrosurgical reconstruction.

Results  Of 48 patients, 32 were managed with nonmicrosurgical flaps. Eighteen patients had large defects and 14 had small defects. Reverse lateral forearm flap was the workhorse flap for defect coverage. Of 32 flaps, nine developed complications; however, no patient had total flap necrosis.

Conclusion  Posterior elbow defects are a difficult problem to tackle. To achieve optimal results, all patients with elbow trauma should be attended and managed by orthopaedic and plastic surgeons in collaboration for optimal results. We believe that most of these defects can be resurfaced by nonmicrosurgical reconstruction with proper planning and execution and their utility cannot be understated.

Flap survival and functional outcomes in elbow soft tissue reconstruction: A 25-year systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Different elbow flap reconstructions have been described in the literature. We aim to define the optimal flap technique based on defect size and etiology.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken using the terms "(Elbow reconstruction) AND ((Soft tissue) OR (flap))". Flaps were grouped under fasciocutaneous (FCF), muscular (MF), distant pedicled (DPF), and free flaps (FF). The primary outcome was flap survival. The secondary outcomes were postoperative complications and range of motion (pROM).

RESULTS

Twenty articles with 224 patients were included. Defect sizes were small (<10 cm²) (18%), medium (10-30 cm²) (23%), large (30-100 cm²) (43%), and massive (>100 cm²) (16%). Etiologies included trauma (26%), burn contractures (26%), infection (26%), hardware coverage (16%), and others (6%). FCF (54%) was the preferred flap followed by MF (28%), DPF (13%), and FF (5%). The rate of flap necrosis was 4% and that of other complications was 10%. The postoperative range of motion (pROM) (reported in 154 patients) was >100°, 50-100°, and <50° in 82%, 17%, and 1% of the cases, respectively. Small defects were most commonly reconstructed with MFs (83%), medium defects were reconstructed with MFs (52%) or FCFs (46%), and large defects were reconstructed with FCFs (91%). Massive defects predominantly required DPFs (60%) and FFs (26%). FCFs were the most common reconstruction method for burn contractures (84%), infections (55%), and traumatic defects (51%). Hardware coverage was predominantly performed using MFs (86%). No difference in complications and pROM was found between flap techniques.

CONCLUSION

Elbow flap reconstruction can be performed using different techniques. FCFs are the most commonly used reconstruction method. MFs are useful for smaller defects and hardware coverage. DPFs and FFs are needed for massive injuries.

Innovative adaptation of the "spare tissues concept" applied for olecranon coverage of a severe burn patient: A case report

BACKGROUND

The management of bone exposure in patients with extensive burns could be a challenge due to the lack of healthy tissue. In such cases, it could be interesting to use any still healthy tissue initially destined for amputation and use it to cover up another site. We present the case of a sever burn patient for whom we used the only healthy palmar hand skin to cover an olecranon exposure.

CLINICAL CASE DESCRIPTION

A 38-year-old man has been admitted in burn victim unit with extensive deep burns on 60% of the total body surface. An exposure of the left olecranon was appeared occurring on a burned area, with absence of healthy local tissues available for coverage. Concomitantly a trans-radial amputation was indicated because of severe digits burns leading to an impossibility to preserve the function of the hand. A palmar skin area was healthy leading to harvested this palmar skin flap pedicled on ulnar vessels. Early post-operative healing was satisfactory and no vascular suffering of the flap has been observed with a total healing at three weeks.

CONCLUSION

In any patient the spare tissues concept should be keep in mind when amputation is indicated simultaneously with a problematic of loss of substance coverage to a proximity area. In this case of severe burn patient, we used a palmar skin flap pedicled on the ulnar vessels to cover an olecranon exposure.