The role of medial gastrocnemius free flap in coverage of ischial pressure sore in paraplegic patients

Best Solutions for Perineal and Pressure Sore Reconstruction

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Understand variations of the myocutaneous rectus abdominis muscle flap as it is used for perineal reconstruction and discuss common and alternative options for perineal defect reconstruction. 2. Review primary options and alternatives to pressure sore reconstruction if the primary option is not available and recognize when pressure sore reconstruction is not feasible. 3. Highlight pertinent anatomy and techniques for the flaps described.

SUMMARY

Perineal reconstruction following tumor resection is often complicated by irradiated tissue and multiple comorbidities, making reconstruction challenging. Management of these conditions can have complication rates as high as 66 percent, which further compounds the costs and implications of managing these wounds. These complication rates can be significantly decreased using flap closure rather than primary closure. Pressure ulcers also occur in patients with poor overall health, multiple comorbidities, and often numerous prior failed reconstruction attempts. Comprehensive management of pressure sores is a significant burden to the health care system, at a cost of $9.1 to $11.6 billion per year. There exists an extensive body of literature describing the pathophysiology and management strategies for these problems. The focus of this article is to discuss best solutions for perineal and pressure ulcer reconstruction, and to explore alternative options for reconstruction.

Free Tissue Transfer in Pressure Ulcer Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Background Pressure ulcers (PUs) affect 2.5 million people in the United States annually and incur health-care costs of 11 billion dollars annually. Stage III/IV PU often require local flap reconstruction. Unfortunately, PU recurrence is common following reconstruction; recurrence rates as high as 82% have been reported. When local flap options are inadequate, free tissue transfer may be indicated but the indications have yet to be delineated. To develop evidence-based guidelines for the use of free flaps in PU reconstruction, we performed a systematic review.

Methods A systematic review of the available English-language, peer-reviewed literature was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Articles were manually reviewed for relevance.

Results Out of 272 articles identified, 10 articles were included in the final analysis. Overall, this systematic review suggests that free-flap PU reconstruction yields fewer recurrences compared with local flaps (0–20 vs. 13–82%). Further, several types of free flaps for PU reconstruction were identified in this review, along with their indications.

Conclusion Free tissue transfer should be considered for recurrent PU. We offer specific recommendations for their use in PU reconstruction.