Retrospective Cohort Observational Study on the Single Best Perforator-Based Pacman Flap in the Reconstruction of Stage IV Sacral Region Pressure Ulcers

T. M. Balakrishnan; Basker Kanagaraj Mariappan; J. Jaganmohan

doi:10.1055/s-0040-1714318

Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery, Inhaltsverzeichnis

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Plast Surg 2020; 53(02): 266-272
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1714318

Original Article

Retrospective Cohort Observational Study on the Single Best Perforator-Based Pacman Flap in the Reconstruction of Stage IV Sacral Region Pressure Ulcers

Autor*innen

T. M. Balakrishnan

¹Department of Plastic and Faciomaxillary Surgery, Madras Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Basker Kanagaraj Mariappan

¹Department of Plastic and Faciomaxillary Surgery, Madras Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
J. Jaganmohan

¹Department of Plastic and Faciomaxillary Surgery, Madras Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Abstract

Introduction Single best perforator-based Pacman flap (SBPBPF) fortifies the advancement and transposition flap biogeometry principles with robust blood supply of perforator flaps to provide cover for the sacral pressure sore of any dimension. This article describes the biogeometry and technique of raising the SBPBPF.

Aim To assess the outcomes of reconstruction of stage IV sacral pressure sore using the SBPBPF.

Materials and Methods A preliminary cadaver study was done in 24 gluteal specimens in fresh cadavers to determine the anatomical details of perforators of the perisacral region. From 2015 to 2017, 42 myelopathic patients (40 males and 2 females; quadriparetic n = 2 and paraplegic/paraparetic n = 40) underwent SBPBPF reconstruction of stage IV sacral pressure sore. Their documents were analyzed in this retrospective study. All were followed-up for an average period of 12.5 months.

Results Cadaver study revealed significant perforators arising from seven different source vessels in the perisacral region. In the clinical study, average size of the paddle harvested was 168 cm² on a single best perforator. On an average, the size of the single best perforator harvested with the flap was 1.5 mm. None had early failures of flaps. Thirty-nine patients had well-settled flaps at the end of follow-up period except three (7%) who developed late recurrence due to loss of compliance with offloading instructions. Two experienced mild collections (flap complication rate was 4.76%) in the immediate postoperative period that healed uneventfully. The overall complication rate was 11.9%.

Conclusion SBPBPF is an excellent addendum to reconstructive tool for stage IV sacral pressure sores.

Keywords

pressure sores - perforator flaps - single best perforator based Pacman flap - biogeometry of Pacman flap

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 David G. Armstrong. Broadcast on pressure ulcer best practices at the NPUAP (serial online). Available at: https://diabeticfootonline.com/2019/05/02/keckmedusc-hosts-cmsgov-broadcast-on-pressure-ulcer-best-practices-thenpuap/. Accessed August 21, 2019
2 VanGilder C, Amlung S, Harrison P, Meyer S. Results of the 2008-2009 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence Survey and a 3-year, acute care, unit-specific analysis. Ostomy Wound Manage 2009; 55 (11) 39-45
3 Meehan M. National pressure ulcer prevalence survey. Adv Wound Care 1994; 7 (03) 27-30, 34, 36–38
4 Bennett G, Dealey C, Posnett J. The cost of pressure ulcers in the UK. Age Ageing 2004; 33 (03) 230-235
5 Reddy M, Gill SS, Kalkar SR, Wu W, Anderson PJ, Rochon PA. Treatment of pressure ulcers: a systematic review. JAMA 2008; 300 (22) 2647-2662
6 Sung YH, Park KH. Factors affecting the healing of pressure ulcers in a Korean acute care hospital. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2011; 38 (01) 38-45
7 Neligan PC. Plastic surgery. New York, USA: Elsevier; 2018
8 Stefano Bonomi MD, André Salval MD, Federica Brenta MD, Vincenzo Rapisarda MD, Fernanda Settembrini MD. The Pacman perforator-based V-Y advancement flap for reconstruction of pressure sores at different locations. Ann Plast Surg 2015; 77 (03) 324-331
9 Blondeel PN, Morris SF, Hallock GG, Neligan PC.. Perforator flaps Anatomy, Technique, & Clinical Applications. 2nd ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Quality Medical Publishing, Inc; 2003
10 Rubino C, Ramakrishnan V, Figus A, Bulla A, Coscia V, Cavazzuti MA. Flap size/flow rate relationship in perforator flaps and its importance in DIEAP flap drainage. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 62 (12) 1666-1670
11 Koshima I, Moriguchi T, Soeda S, Kawata S, Ohta S, Ikeda A. The gluteal perforator-based flap for repair of sacral pressure sores. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993; 91 (04) 678-683
12 Kroll SS, Rosenfield L. Perforator-based flaps for low posterior midline defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988; 81 (04) 561-566
13 Yamamoto Y, Tsutsumida A, Murazumi M, Sugihara T. Long-term outcome of pressure sores treated with flap coverage. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 100 (05) 1212-1217
14 Cushing CA, Phillips LG. Evidence-based medicine: pressure sores. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (06) 1720-1732
15 Lemaire V, Boulanger K, Heymans O. Free flaps for pressure sore coverage. Ann Plast Surg 2008; 60 (06) 631-634
16 Durgun M, Bas S. Repair of sacral and ischial region defects with lateral sacral artery perforator flaps. Ann Plast Surg 2019; 82 (03) 304-309