No abstract

No abstract

The keystone perforator flap (KPF) was first introduced in 2003 by Behan et al for use in reconstruction after skin cancer excision. Since its initial description, KPF use has been expanded to complex defects of various etiologies and disorders throughout the body. At its most basic, the KPF is a perforator-type flap designed with a 1:1 flap-to-defect width ratio. Keystone perforator flaps are specifically raised on pedicles arising from musculocutaneous or fasciocutaneous perforator vessels. Major advantages of the KPF derive from the maintenance of perforator vascular territories, perforosomes, permitting increased flap viability. In turn, this allows for more aggressive undermining in sites away from perforators when greater skin mobilization is necessary. Furthermore, the KPF is relatively easy to perform leading to shorter operative times and no postoperative monitoring period. There are basically 4 different types of keystone flaps in order of increasing undermining and disturbance of underlying fascia. These different classifications of KPFs may be used in different anatomical locations over the entire body based on skin laxity and defect size/depth. Numerous advancements and modifications have been documented adapting the KPF to specific conditions, including myelomeningoceles, and scrotal and lower eyelid defects. The purpose of this article is to provide an organized review of the KPF with emphasis on different classifications, applications, and limitations as well as an overview of the surgical technique. We have additionally included a discussion on KPF physiology and review of current literature.

Wheel spoke injuries may result in severe soft tissue damage and bony trauma. Poor prognostic factors included high-energy injury, contamination and infection, and delayed treatment.

Tourniquet-related nerve injuries (TRNIs) are a rare but feared complication of operative tourniquet use. While the literature contains multiple discussions regarding tourniquet use as well as reported cases of its complications, there does not exist a consensus guideline for a safe tourniquet pressure, application time, or management of TRNI. This paper conducts a comprehensive review of the available literature for cases of TRNI with a specific focus on analyzing the management of cases of TRNI and their functional recovery. One hundred nine articles were retrieved in a search of medical literature (PubMed) using the keywords: tourniquet, nerve injury, paralysis, and palsy. The initial search was further narrowed down to seven case series and 10 case reports totaling 203 reported cases of TRNI. Of the 203 cases, 64 cases involved upper extremity tourniquet use, and 139 cases involved lower extremity tourniquet use. Most patients (89.75%) experienced a complete recovery. TRNI may occur over a wide range of tourniquet application times and tourniquet pressures; hence, it is a necessity for surgeons to consider it as a potential complication and understand the methodology for diagnosis and long-term management.