![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Backgrounds
The quantified relationship between perforator diameter and flap length can be supported, and the impact of different strategies of managements of a non-pedicled perforator with two major subfascial divisions on flap survival has never been explored.
Materials and methods
This study was divided into two parts. In Part I, 48 Sprague-Dawley rats underwent flap harvesting based on six perforators with a diameter gradient. Then, the flap length and perforator diameter were measured for establishment of an equation. In Part II, 32 rats underwent harvest of a transverse flap based on the right superficial epigastric perforator. In 16 rats the right intermediate iliolumbar perforator was severed in a distal-to-division approach, whereas, in the other 16 rats, it was severed with in a proximal-to-division approach. Necrosis rates and blood perfusion were also compared.
Results
The equation y = 13.02 × x + 2.29 could be established between the perforator diameter in the pedicle (x) and the flap length (y) that could be supported with R2=0.8963 and P < 0.001.The transverse flap with a distal-to-division management of the intermediate iliolumbar perforasome was weaker in perfusion and had a necrosis rate of 49±4%, whereas the flap with a proximal-to division management had a significantly stronger perfusion and a lower necrosis rate of 21±2% (P<0.001).
Conclusions
The safe flap length that can be estimated based on a perforator with a known diameter can be calculated using y=13.02× x +2.29. A short segment of the stem of an intermediate perforator with two major subfascial branches should be preserved to augment flap survival.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).