Dorsal metatarsal artery perforator flaps (DMTAPF) applied for paediatric foot reconstruction: A review of the aetiology of primary injury, surgical technique applied, and long-term outcome for the child.

Autor: Godwin Y; Sheffield Children's Hospital, Department of Plastic Surgery, Clarkson Street, Broomhall, Sheffield S10 2TH, UK. Electronic address: ygodwin@hotmail.com., Wadi M; Médecins Sans Frontières, Gaza Clinic, Thaoura Street, Gaza City, Palestine. Electronic address: wadimsf@hotmail.com., Harb L; MSF Clinic, Médecins Sans Frontières, Gaza Clinic, Thaoura Street, Gaza City, Palestine. Electronic address: luay.84@hotmail.com., Skov LR; University of Cambridge, UK Dementia Research Institute Cambridge Island Research Building (IRB), Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 0AH, UK. Electronic address: Ls801@cam.ac.uk.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS [J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg] 2024 Dec; Vol. 99, pp. 619-627. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 May 31.
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2024.05.025
Abstrakt: Aim: Dorsal metatarsal artery perforator flap (DMTAPF) reconstructions were reviewed to assess indications for application, variation of surgical technique and the long-term impact of growth.
Method: A cohort of 15 children presented with 17 DMTAPFs on 16 feet. Patient demographics, the aetiology and timing of primary injury and details of flap reconstruction were recorded. Flap pedicle location, the soft tissue composition and complications were recorded. The active range of motion (AROM) of ankle and toes was compared to the uninjured side. Photographic records of both feet were compiled.
Results: Post-reconstruction follow-up attendance was 94%. Motor Vehicle Accidents (MVA) were the most common primary cause of injury. Most DMTAPF reconstructions were applied electively at toe-extension contracture release. One DMTAPF was applied acutely for a traumatic defect. The mean age at flap review was 10 years. The mean interval between DMTAPF reconstruction and outcome-review clinic was 2 years. The flap was composed of skin +/- scar tissue with an intact adipo-fascial component. A single perforator pedicle was employed in most. Direct donor site closure was supplemented with skin graft (predominantly full-thickness). There were no major donor site complications or skin graft loss. Flap complications were rare and minor. No post-operative revisions were required. Recurrent extension contracture was rare. Post-operative AROM was within a functional range.
Conclusions: DMTAPF provides a vascularised cover for exposed bones, joints and tendons. Previous scarring, or grafting, are not contraindications to donor site selection. All four webspace perforators are potential pedicles. Flap and donor site complications are rare. This pliable flap kept pace with growth avoiding recurrence of extension deformity. Patients' activities and comfort improved after reconstruction.
Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest None declared.
(Copyright © 2024 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: