Cargando…

Improving Pressure Ulcer Reconstruction: Our Protocol and the COP (Cone of Pressure) Flap

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of pressure ulcers is challenging for high recurrence rates. Deepithelialized flaps have been used previously with the aim to eliminate shearing forces and the cone of pressure (COP) effect. The goal of this study is to adopt a standardized protocol and evaluate if 2 d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gargano, Francesco, Edstrom, Lee, Szymanski, Karen, Schmidt, Scott, Bevivino, Jack, Zienowicz, Richard, Stark, Jennifer, Taylor, Helena O., Podda, Silvio, Liu, Paul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5404432/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28458961
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001234
_version_ 1783231594515922944
author Gargano, Francesco
Edstrom, Lee
Szymanski, Karen
Schmidt, Scott
Bevivino, Jack
Zienowicz, Richard
Stark, Jennifer
Taylor, Helena O.
Podda, Silvio
Liu, Paul
author_facet Gargano, Francesco
Edstrom, Lee
Szymanski, Karen
Schmidt, Scott
Bevivino, Jack
Zienowicz, Richard
Stark, Jennifer
Taylor, Helena O.
Podda, Silvio
Liu, Paul
author_sort Gargano, Francesco
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of pressure ulcers is challenging for high recurrence rates. Deepithelialized flaps have been used previously with the aim to eliminate shearing forces and the cone of pressure (COP) effect. The goal of this study is to adopt a standardized protocol and evaluate if 2 different flap techniques affect outcomes. METHODS: The novel COP flap is illustrated. Twenty patients were prospectively treated with flap coverage over a 36-month period. According to the flap type, patients were assigned to 2 groups: group 1 with 11 patients treated with the COP flap and group 2 with 9 patients treated with conventional flap without anchoring technique. We adopted a standardized protocol of debridement, tissue cultures, and negative-pressure wound therapy. Rotation fasciocutaneous flaps were used for both groups and mean follow-up was 19 months. The COP flap is a large deepithelialized rotation flap inset with transcutaneous nonabsorbable bolster sutures. The 2 groups were comparable for demographics and ulcer location and size (P < 0.05). Five patients showed positive cultures and were treated with antibiotics and negative-pressure therapy before surgery. RESULTS: Recurrence rates were 12% in the COP flap group and 60% in the conventional flap coverage group (P < 0.001). Results were compared at 16-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The COP flap significantly reduces recurrences and eliminates shearing forces, suture ripping, and tension on superficial soft-tissue layers. The technique can be applied to both ischial and sacral pressure sores. The flap provides padding over bony prominence without jeopardizing flap vascularity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5404432
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54044322017-04-28 Improving Pressure Ulcer Reconstruction: Our Protocol and the COP (Cone of Pressure) Flap Gargano, Francesco Edstrom, Lee Szymanski, Karen Schmidt, Scott Bevivino, Jack Zienowicz, Richard Stark, Jennifer Taylor, Helena O. Podda, Silvio Liu, Paul Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Original Article BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of pressure ulcers is challenging for high recurrence rates. Deepithelialized flaps have been used previously with the aim to eliminate shearing forces and the cone of pressure (COP) effect. The goal of this study is to adopt a standardized protocol and evaluate if 2 different flap techniques affect outcomes. METHODS: The novel COP flap is illustrated. Twenty patients were prospectively treated with flap coverage over a 36-month period. According to the flap type, patients were assigned to 2 groups: group 1 with 11 patients treated with the COP flap and group 2 with 9 patients treated with conventional flap without anchoring technique. We adopted a standardized protocol of debridement, tissue cultures, and negative-pressure wound therapy. Rotation fasciocutaneous flaps were used for both groups and mean follow-up was 19 months. The COP flap is a large deepithelialized rotation flap inset with transcutaneous nonabsorbable bolster sutures. The 2 groups were comparable for demographics and ulcer location and size (P < 0.05). Five patients showed positive cultures and were treated with antibiotics and negative-pressure therapy before surgery. RESULTS: Recurrence rates were 12% in the COP flap group and 60% in the conventional flap coverage group (P < 0.001). Results were compared at 16-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The COP flap significantly reduces recurrences and eliminates shearing forces, suture ripping, and tension on superficial soft-tissue layers. The technique can be applied to both ischial and sacral pressure sores. The flap provides padding over bony prominence without jeopardizing flap vascularity. Wolters Kluwer Health 2017-03-30 /pmc/articles/PMC5404432/ /pubmed/28458961 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001234 Text en Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Original Article
Gargano, Francesco
Edstrom, Lee
Szymanski, Karen
Schmidt, Scott
Bevivino, Jack
Zienowicz, Richard
Stark, Jennifer
Taylor, Helena O.
Podda, Silvio
Liu, Paul
Improving Pressure Ulcer Reconstruction: Our Protocol and the COP (Cone of Pressure) Flap
title Improving Pressure Ulcer Reconstruction: Our Protocol and the COP (Cone of Pressure) Flap
title_full Improving Pressure Ulcer Reconstruction: Our Protocol and the COP (Cone of Pressure) Flap
title_fullStr Improving Pressure Ulcer Reconstruction: Our Protocol and the COP (Cone of Pressure) Flap
title_full_unstemmed Improving Pressure Ulcer Reconstruction: Our Protocol and the COP (Cone of Pressure) Flap
title_short Improving Pressure Ulcer Reconstruction: Our Protocol and the COP (Cone of Pressure) Flap
title_sort improving pressure ulcer reconstruction: our protocol and the cop (cone of pressure) flap
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5404432/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28458961
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001234
work_keys_str_mv AT garganofrancesco improvingpressureulcerreconstructionourprotocolandthecopconeofpressureflap
AT edstromlee improvingpressureulcerreconstructionourprotocolandthecopconeofpressureflap
AT szymanskikaren improvingpressureulcerreconstructionourprotocolandthecopconeofpressureflap
AT schmidtscott improvingpressureulcerreconstructionourprotocolandthecopconeofpressureflap
AT bevivinojack improvingpressureulcerreconstructionourprotocolandthecopconeofpressureflap
AT zienowiczrichard improvingpressureulcerreconstructionourprotocolandthecopconeofpressureflap
AT starkjennifer improvingpressureulcerreconstructionourprotocolandthecopconeofpressureflap
AT taylorhelenao improvingpressureulcerreconstructionourprotocolandthecopconeofpressureflap
AT poddasilvio improvingpressureulcerreconstructionourprotocolandthecopconeofpressureflap
AT liupaul improvingpressureulcerreconstructionourprotocolandthecopconeofpressureflap