Introduction Elbow contracture is a challenging problem to the reconstructive surgeon owing to the wide range of extension that should be achieved and due to the common unavailability of local tissues to be used for reconstruction of the elbow.(1)The lateral arm flap (LAF) is a popular flap transfer, which can be applied in many procedures. Described in 1982 and since its clinical application has been increasing. Perforator flaps become indispensable tool which help not too sacrifice the pedicel (2) Objective: to describe using the lateral arm perforator flap for reconstruction of cubital contracture secondary to burn. Methods: It is a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent cubital fossa reconstruction. Results: In the current series, ten patients were included with the mean age 24 years (8 to 36). they were operated for definitive reconstruction on average 72 months (24m to 120m) after the initial injury. The reconstruction for 10 cases in our study was performed as one stage procedure. In the current study, complications were observed in three cases (27.3%), the wound dehiscence was recorded in one patient also, we faced two patients with dissatisfied results due to bulkiness of the flap in the elbow. Conclusion: We concluded that the lateral arm perforator flap is a versatile and reliable option for the reconstruction of all types of elbow contracture, releasing defects with satisfactory results in terms of function and esthetic outcomes.

Background: Lower extremity wounds have been always a challenge for reconstructive surgeons. Free perforator flaps are considered to be the best option for this problem but require the complexity of microsurgery. So, pedicled perforator flaps have emerged as an alternative option. The aim of the present study is the assessment of efficacy of perforator flaps (either free flaps or pedicled flaps) regarding the coverage of traumatic soft tissue defects on the leg and foot. Patients and methods: A prospective study was conducted upon 40 patients with traumatic soft tissue defects in the leg and foot. The free flaps used were anterolateral thigh flap (ALT) and medial sural artery perforator flap (MSAP). In pedicled perforator flaps group, 10 cases were designed as propeller flaps, while the other 10 flaps were designed as perforator plus flaps. Results: Free flaps were mainly used for large sized defects; one case of partial flap loss and one case of complete flap necrosis. MSAP flap was the first option for coverage of large sized defects on foot and ankle as it's a thin and pliable flap, while ALT flap was used for coverage of larger defects on the leg. Pedicled perforator flaps were used mainly for small to medium-sized defects especially in the lower third of the leg; we had 3 cases of flap loss in propeller flap design while we had no cases of flap loss in perforator plus flap. Conclusion:Perforator flaps have become a reasonable solution for soft tissue defects of the lower extremity. Careful assessment of the dimensions, location, patient comorbidities, availability of surrounding soft tissue and presence of adequate perforators are mandatory for proper perforator flap selection.

No abstract

No abstract