Varied uses of the medial sural artery perforator flap

Through the HoloLens™ looking glass: augmented reality for extremity reconstruction surgery using 3D vascular models with perforating vessels

“…CTA may also reduce the incidence of partial and complete flap loss [ 9 ] and its superiority over Doppler ultrasound is well established [ 10 ]. Furthermore, CTA is a useful technique to examine the donor vascular anatomy or the vascular supply to an injured extremity [ 11 ].…”

The free medial sural artery perforator flap: Versatile option for soft tissue reconstruction in small‐to‐moderate size defects of the foot and ankle

“…Furthermore, the flap provides a reliable vascular pedicle. Although the average pedicle length in our series was 7.3 cm (and all pedicles were tailored to the diameter of the recipient vessel), existing studies describe pedicle lengths of up to 15 cm (Hallock, 2001;Cavadas et al, 2001;Ives & Mathur, 2015). In contrast, the anterolateral thigh flap provides pedicle lengths up to 20 cm and this should be taken into consideration when the recipient vessels are either not found or not of adequate quality, in the immediate vicinity of the defect (e.g., trauma, chronic osteomyelitis, PAD) (Yu, 2004).…”

“…In 2001, Hallock (2001 and Cavadas et al (2001) published a more extensive study about the mapping of the sural artery perforators, where also a series of six successful clinical cases of the medial sural artery perforator (MSAP) flaps, including five free flaps and one pedicled flap for ipsilateral lower-leg and foot reconstruction were included. Since then, other manifold studies assessed the anatomical basis of the MSAPs (Kao, Chang, Chen, Wie, & Cheng, 2010;Kim, Jeong, Seul, & Cho, 2006;Kosutic, et al, 2012;Okamoto, Sekiya, Mizutani, & Otsuka, 2007;Shimizu, Kato, Sato, & Taneda, 2009;Thione, Valdatta, Buoro, Tuinder, Mortarino, & Putz, 2004;Wong, Wong, Tan, Chew, & Tay, 2012) and its clinical versatility (Cavadas et al, 2001;Chen, Chen, & Lee, 2005; Chen, Chuang, Chou, Chen, & Wang, 2005;Chen, Yu, Chang, Deng, Wu, & Chen, 2008;Choi, Nam, Choi, Roh, Kim, & Hong, 2013;Hallock, 2014;He, Jin, Zhang, & Zhang, 2014;Ives & Mathur, 2015;Kao et al, 2010;Kim et al, 2006;Lin, Lin, Lin, Hsu, Ng, & Wei, 2011;Kao, Chang, Wie, & Cheng, 2009;Kim, Hwang, Kim, & Lee, 2009;Mao, Zhang, Cui, Peng, Wang, Yu, 2011;Nugent, Endersby, Kennedy, & Burns, 2015;Song, Wu, Zhang, Chen, Ding, Ye, Wu, & Yuan, 2015;Wong et al, 2012;Xie, & Chai, 2012;Xie, Gu, Gong, & Tang, 2007;Wang, Mei, Pan, Chen, Zhang, & Tang, 2013;Zheng, Liu, Dai, & Schilling, 2015).…”

Nose resurfacing with free fasciocutaneous flaps in burns patients

“…However, we preferred ulnar forearm flap due to its superior donor site cosmesis (Hsiao et al, 2016). Additionally, we found that MSAP flap can be another suitable choice, with its similar characteristics to the forearm flap, but less donor site morbidity (Ives & Mathur, 2015;Kao, Chang, Wei, & Cheng, 2009;Nugent, Endersby, Kennedy, & Burns, 2015;Toyserkani & Sørensen, 2015;Xie & Chai, 2012). With careful planning and meticulous dissection, we tend to gradually avoid the forearm flap and use this flap as a free flap in nose resurfacing.…”