In the last two decades, the anterolateral thigh flap has emerged as one of the most popular reconstructive options for multiple body sites. Based on a perforator flap harvest concept, the flap encompasses the advantages of versatility, pliability, and potential for composite tissue replacement. Although numerous anatomical variations exist, these are well-described, and flap safety remains uncompromised if certain anatomical boundaries are respected. Careful preoperative planning and identification of perforators remain the cornerstone of successful flap harvest. Once perforators are identified, variations in skin paddle design allow for multiple skin paddle configurations, central or eccentric orientations, and custom-made flaps tailored to fit almost any defect. A suprafascial dissection allows for "ultra-thin" flaps ideal for folding, tubing, or packing purposes. The versatility of the lateral circumflex femoral artery branches can be exploited to include muscle, iliac bone, tendon, fascia, or nerve in extended designs. The anterolateral thigh flap is currently the frontline choice for head and neck reconstruction, including intraoral, mandibular-maxillary, tongue, and facial defects, and is gaining popularity in abdominal and pelvis reconstruction. It can also be used as a pedicled flap in phallus or perineum reconstruction. More recently, the flap has proved to be extremely useful in skin resurfacing and even functional reconstruction in traumatic wounds. This review summarizes the anatomy, planning, flap harvest, donor morbidity, and clinical applications of the anterolateral thigh flap. An algorithm is proposed that facilitates a clear, problem-based approach for the use of this versatile reconstructive option.

Both muscle and perforator flaps provide vascularized coverage, which nourishes the fracture but muscle flaps pilfer a functional unit which may not be inconsequential in a patient trauma. This pilot study suggests that functional outcomes of perforator skin flaps are equal to muscle flaps and a larger prospective study is warranted.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

participated in the conceptualization of this project, drafted portions of the manuscript, and contributed feedback to subsequent drafts; Dr Bluebond-Langner participated in the conceptualization of this project and contributed feedback to subsequent drafts; and all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Background: A rare, but consequential, risk of gender affirming surgery (GAS) is post-operative regret resulting in a request for surgical reversal. Studies on regret and surgical reversal are scarce, and there is no standard terminology regarding either etiology and/or classification of the various forms of regret.This study includes a survey of surgeons' experience with patient regret and requests for reversal surgery, a literature review on the topic of regret, and expert, consensus opinion designed to establish a classification system for the etiology and types of regret experienced by some patients.Methods: This anonymous survey was sent to the 154 surgeons who registered for the 2016 World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) conference and the 2017 USPATH conference.Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. A MeSH search of the gender-affirming outcomes literature was performed on PubMed for relevant studies pertaining to regret. Original research and review studies that were thought to discuss regret were included for full text review. Results:The literature is inconsistent regarding etiology and classification of regret following GAS. Of the 154 surgeons queried, 30% responded to our survey. Cumulatively, these respondents treated between 18,125 and 27,325 individuals. Fifty-seven percent of surgeons encountered at least one patient who expressed regret, with a total of 62 patients expressing regret (0.2-0.3%). Etiologies of regret were varied and classified as either:(I) true gender-related regret (42%), (II) social regret (37%), and (III) medical regret (8%). The surgeons' experience with patient regret and request for reversal was consistent with the existing literature.Conclusions: In this study, regret following GAS was rare and was consistent with the existing literature.Regret can be classified as true gender-related regret, social regret and medical regret resulting from complications, function, pre-intervention decision making. Guidelines in transgender health should offer preventive strategies as well as treatment recommendations, should a patient experience regret. Future studies and scientific discourse are encouraged on this important topic.

No abstract