Soft tissue coverage at the resource-challenged facility.
expert_opinion · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 18665433.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1007/s11999-008-0386-1 and PMC identifier 2584312.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Covering soft tissue defects remains challenging for orthopaedic surgeons, especially those in resource-challenged facilities. Covering tissue defects follow a plan from simple to complex: primary closure, local flap, area flap, pedicle flap, and free flap. I will limit my discussion to the role of latter two. At the district-level hospital in Vietnam, pedicle flaps are generally more useful, so I will discuss free flaps only briefly. The choices of pedicle flaps include: kite flap, posterior interosseous flap, radial flap (Chinese flap), neurocutaneous flap, anterolateral thigh fasciocutaneous flap, gastrocnemius flap, sural flap, posterior leg flaps; we typically use a free flap with the latissimus dorsi. Soft tissue coverage with pedicle flaps has many advantages: reliability, relatively easy harvest, and good blood supply. Free flaps with microanastomosis have an important place in covering difficult medium- or large-sized soft tissue defects but also require more instruments and more highly trained surgeons.
Medical subject headings
- Health Services Accessibility
- Healthcare Disparities
- Hospitals, District
- Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care
- Plastic Surgery Procedures
- Soft Tissue Injuries
- Surgery, Plastic
- Surgical Flaps