No abstract

Background Ischemia-reperfusion injury plays an important role in flap failure. Ischemic preconditioning technique is the only proven method for preventing ischemia-reperfusion injury, but it is not used widely in daily practice because of difficulties such as prolonging the operation time, need for surgical experience, and increasing the risk of complications. This study has been performed with the assumption that piracetam may be a simple and inexpensive alternative to the preconditioning technique due to its antioxidant, antiaggregant, rheological, anti-inflammatory, antiapoptotic, cytoprotective, and immune modulating effects. Methods Thirty-two rats were divided into four groups and latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flaps were raised. No extra procedure was applied, and no treatment was given to the control group. Four hours of ischemia was created by clamping the thoracodorsal pedicle in the second group. The animals in the third group were treated with 10 minutes of ischemia and reperfusion periods as a preconditioning procedure before the 4 hours of ischemia. Animals in the fourth group received systemic piracetam 30 minutes before and 6 days after reperfusion. Nitric oxide and myeloperoxidase levels in serum and tissue, acute inflammatory cell response, and vascular proliferation in tissue were examined at the postoperative 24th hour and 10th day. Results Myeloperoxidase activity in both preconditioning and piracetam groups, was significantly lower than the ischemia-reperfusion group. Acute inflammatory cell response was similarly decreased in both preconditioning and piracetam groups compared with ischemia-reperfusion group. Tissue measurements of nitric oxide were also significantly higher in both preconditioning and piracetam groups than in the ischemia-reperfusion group. However, vascular proliferation increased in the preconditioning group, while it did not show any significant change in the piracetam group. Conclusion This study shows that systemic piracetam treatment provides protection against ischemia-reperfusion injury in musculocutaneous flaps and can offer a simple and inexpensive alternative to the preconditioning technique.

Background: Nasolabial flap is a work-horse flap for coverage of many facial units. However, these flaps have limited mobility and these limit their use in many instances. Facial artery with its numerous small cutaneous perforators can be a source for free-style skin flaps that can be islanded and have greater reach, one of which is nasolabial perforatory flap. Methods: The authors present a case series of 35 patients with central facial unit defects reconstructed by a single flap harvested from the nasolabial sulcus. Results: In our series, we did not encounter any significant flap loss and patient satisfaction was high both functionally and aesthetically. Main drawbacks were temporary venous congestion and hair bearing flaps in male patients. Conclusion: The authors think with its reliability and versatility nasolabial perforator flaps, based on the same donor area as the traditional nasolabial flap can be a valuable addition to our arsenal in reconstruction of central facial unit defects.

Background Fibula osteocutaneous flap is associated with a higher rate of reexploration in mandible reconstruction due to limited space for the fixation of various tissue components on multiple segments of the fibula flap. To maintain optimal circulation to the flap and to prevent negative outcomes because of partial or total flap loss, we shared our experiences on salvaging the free fibula flap with vascular compromise in the first reexploration and we developed an algorithm. Methods From 1992 to 2018, 12 patients between the ages of 48 to 63 (mean: 52.5) who had presented with oral squamous cell carcinoma (n = 10) followed by osteoradionecrosis of the mandible (n = 2) were explored. The operative findings were; (1) occlusions of vein (3 cases); (2) occlusions of artery (4 cases); and (3) occlusions of both artery and vein (5 cases). After correcting the kinking or evacuating the hematoma, the arterial inflow was initially reestablished by anterograde flow. If this was nonfunctional, retrograde flow from the distal end of the peroneal artery was provided. For the vein, anterograde venous drainage was reestablished. If the thrombus extended deep into the peroneal vein, regular venous return was blocked on the anterograde side, and the flap remained congested therefore retrograde venous drainage was performed regardless of the valves in the vein. However, the two ends of the peroneal artery were anastomosed to prevent thrombosis of the artery. Results The success rate of revised cases was 75% (9/12). All failed cases had presented with both artery and vein occlusion (three cases). Pectoralis major musculocutaneous flap and anterolateral thigh flap were needed for the external surface in two cases. Skin graft was required for seven cases to restore intraoral lining. Six patients underwent dental rehabilitation with prosthetic implants. Conclusion Immediate reexploration is mandatory to salvage the flap.

No abstract

No abstract

he deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap remains the most common flap for autologous breast reconstruction, but it is not always the ideal option. In those instances, there are other secondary options, such as profunda artery perforator, 1,2 lateral thigh perforator, 3 or gluteal artery perforator (superior and inferior) flaps. 4 Recently, the lumbar artery perforator (LAP) flap has emerged as an excellent alternative option for breast reconstruction. 5 Even in patients with low body mass index (BMI), where there is a paucity of tissue and skin laxity in most anatomic regions, the lumbar area and LAP flap can often provide adequate volume and structure for total autologous tissue breast reconstruction. 6 Despite the multiple advantages of the LAP flap, there are concerns that prevent its common adoption. 7 First, the LAP flap is technically Background: The lumbar artery perforator (LAP) flap has emerged as an excellent option for breast reconstruction, but its steep learning curve makes it less approachable. Furthermore, length of the operation, flap ischemia time, need for composite vascular grafts, complex microsurgery, multiple position changes, and general concern for safety has led experienced surgeons to stage bilateral reconstructions. In the authors' experience, simultaneous bilateral LAP flaps are feasible, but overall perioperative safety has not been fully explored. Methods: Thirty-one patients (62 flaps) underwent simultaneous bilateral LAP flaps and were included in the study (excluding stacked four-flaps and unilateral flaps). Patients underwent two position changes in the operating room: supine to prone and then supine again. A retrospective review of patient demographics, intraoperative details, and complications was performed. Results:The overall flap success rate was 96.8%. Five flaps were compromised postoperatively. The intraoperative anastomotic revision rate was 24.1% per flap (4.3% per anastomosis). The significant complication rate was 22.6%. The number of sustained hypothermic episodes and hypotensive episodes correlated with intraoperative arterial thrombosis (P < 0.05). The number of hypotensive episodes and increased intraoperative fluid correlated with flap compromise (P < 0.05). High body mass index correlated with overall complications (P < 0.05). The presence of diabetes correlated with intraoperative arterial thrombosis (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Simultaneous bilateral LAP flaps can be performed safely with an experienced and trained microsurgical team. Hypothermia and hypotension negatively affect the initial anastomotic success. In this complex operation, a coordinated approach between the anesthesia and nursing team is paramount for patient safety.

No abstract