2012
DOI: 10.1097/prs.0b013e3182589e63
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Soft-Tissue Reconstruction of Open Fractures of the Lower Limb

Abstract: Early vascularized soft tissue closure has long been recognized to be essential in achieving eventual infection free union. The question of whether muscle or fasciocutaneous tissue is superior in terms of promoting fracture healing remains unresolved. Here we review the experimental and clinical evidence for the different tissue types and advocate that the biological role of flaps should be included as a key consideration during flap selection.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
86
0
4

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 133 publications
(91 citation statements)
references
References 74 publications
1
86
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…However, fasciocutaneous flaps offer a number of advantages such as ease of dissection, reduced donor site morbidity and a thinner, more pliable reconstructive substrate which is more like the tissue being replaced. Furthermore, recent studies have suggested that there is no difference between muscle and fasciocutaneous flaps in terms of flap survival, postoperative infection, osteomyelitis, primary and overall bone union and ambulation [32][33][34]. The results of our study support this latter view.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…However, fasciocutaneous flaps offer a number of advantages such as ease of dissection, reduced donor site morbidity and a thinner, more pliable reconstructive substrate which is more like the tissue being replaced. Furthermore, recent studies have suggested that there is no difference between muscle and fasciocutaneous flaps in terms of flap survival, postoperative infection, osteomyelitis, primary and overall bone union and ambulation [32][33][34]. The results of our study support this latter view.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…However, disadvantages are related to frequent and potential functional deficits of the donor site and a generally poor cosmetic result (even in donor areas) [28,29].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…El uso de colgajos basados en perforantes y del DIEP en particular, es menos habitual muchas veces por el abultamiento que produce en un lugar donde se requiere de coberturas cutáneas más finas, sin embargo, ha sido comunicado su utilización con éxito en diferentes sitios, tales como extremidades superiores e inferiores [11][12][13][14][15][16] . En este caso, dado las condiciones generales y locales de la paciente este colgajo resultó ser una excelente alternativa, sin morbilidad en la zona dadora y un resultado adecuado.…”
Section: Discussionunclassified