Cargando…

Efficacy of two different types of island flaps for the repair of diabetic foot ulcers on the heel

BACKGROUND: Heel ulcer of diabetic foot (DF) is a difficulty in clinical repair. The current study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy of the medial plantar island flap (MPIF) and the sural nerve nutritional artery island flap (SNNAIF) for the repair of chronic diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) on t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhou, Kailong, Zhu, Zhenhua, Zuo, Zhicheng, Zhao, Jiaju
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8987865/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35402595
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-22-293
_version_ 1784682835856064512
author Zhou, Kailong
Zhu, Zhenhua
Zuo, Zhicheng
Zhao, Jiaju
author_facet Zhou, Kailong
Zhu, Zhenhua
Zuo, Zhicheng
Zhao, Jiaju
author_sort Zhou, Kailong
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Heel ulcer of diabetic foot (DF) is a difficulty in clinical repair. The current study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy of the medial plantar island flap (MPIF) and the sural nerve nutritional artery island flap (SNNAIF) for the repair of chronic diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) on the heel. METHODS: Twelve patients with chronic DFU on the heel were admitted to our department from August 2018 to August 2020. Upon admission, ulcer debridement and bone cement filling were performed for 2–3 weeks to control infection. Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) or computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the lower limb was performed to assess vascular status. Then, 5 patients were repaired with MPIF and 7 patients with SNNAIF. RESULTS: The MPIF survived completely in 5 cases; SNNAIF was used in 7 cases, and 6 cases survived completely. Meanwhile, 1 patient who underwent SNNAIF presented with partial necrosis of the distal end of the flap. Then, it healed after debridement and dressing changes. All 12 flaps were followed up for 6–12 months. The flaps had a soft texture, and their shape was satisfactory. In 2 cases, SNNAIFs re-ruptured 8 months after surgery. However, they healed after dressing changes and weight-bearing reduction. During the 10-month follow-up, the sensory recovery of MPIF in 5 cases was satisfactory because the flap contained medial plantar cutaneous nerve. Meanwhile, 7 patients who underwent SNNAIF repair had poor sensory recovery. All patients had good dorsiflexion and plantarflexion of the ankle with satisfactory function. CONCLUSIONS: Both the MPIF and SNNAIF flaps had a high survival rate and are feasible for DFU repair with good clinical outcomes. If DSA or CTA shows that the medial plantar artery is unobstructed and the heel wound is small, MPIF can retain sensory function and wear resistance. It is the first choice for repairing diabetic foot ulcers on the heel. If the heel wound are large or DSA or CTA shows that the posterior tibial artery is occluded and the peroneal artery is unobstructed, SNNAIF repair is safer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8987865
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89878652022-04-08 Efficacy of two different types of island flaps for the repair of diabetic foot ulcers on the heel Zhou, Kailong Zhu, Zhenhua Zuo, Zhicheng Zhao, Jiaju Ann Transl Med Original Article BACKGROUND: Heel ulcer of diabetic foot (DF) is a difficulty in clinical repair. The current study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy of the medial plantar island flap (MPIF) and the sural nerve nutritional artery island flap (SNNAIF) for the repair of chronic diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) on the heel. METHODS: Twelve patients with chronic DFU on the heel were admitted to our department from August 2018 to August 2020. Upon admission, ulcer debridement and bone cement filling were performed for 2–3 weeks to control infection. Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) or computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the lower limb was performed to assess vascular status. Then, 5 patients were repaired with MPIF and 7 patients with SNNAIF. RESULTS: The MPIF survived completely in 5 cases; SNNAIF was used in 7 cases, and 6 cases survived completely. Meanwhile, 1 patient who underwent SNNAIF presented with partial necrosis of the distal end of the flap. Then, it healed after debridement and dressing changes. All 12 flaps were followed up for 6–12 months. The flaps had a soft texture, and their shape was satisfactory. In 2 cases, SNNAIFs re-ruptured 8 months after surgery. However, they healed after dressing changes and weight-bearing reduction. During the 10-month follow-up, the sensory recovery of MPIF in 5 cases was satisfactory because the flap contained medial plantar cutaneous nerve. Meanwhile, 7 patients who underwent SNNAIF repair had poor sensory recovery. All patients had good dorsiflexion and plantarflexion of the ankle with satisfactory function. CONCLUSIONS: Both the MPIF and SNNAIF flaps had a high survival rate and are feasible for DFU repair with good clinical outcomes. If DSA or CTA shows that the medial plantar artery is unobstructed and the heel wound is small, MPIF can retain sensory function and wear resistance. It is the first choice for repairing diabetic foot ulcers on the heel. If the heel wound are large or DSA or CTA shows that the posterior tibial artery is occluded and the peroneal artery is unobstructed, SNNAIF repair is safer. AME Publishing Company 2022-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8987865/ /pubmed/35402595 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-22-293 Text en 2022 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Zhou, Kailong
Zhu, Zhenhua
Zuo, Zhicheng
Zhao, Jiaju
Efficacy of two different types of island flaps for the repair of diabetic foot ulcers on the heel
title Efficacy of two different types of island flaps for the repair of diabetic foot ulcers on the heel
title_full Efficacy of two different types of island flaps for the repair of diabetic foot ulcers on the heel
title_fullStr Efficacy of two different types of island flaps for the repair of diabetic foot ulcers on the heel
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy of two different types of island flaps for the repair of diabetic foot ulcers on the heel
title_short Efficacy of two different types of island flaps for the repair of diabetic foot ulcers on the heel
title_sort efficacy of two different types of island flaps for the repair of diabetic foot ulcers on the heel
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8987865/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35402595
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-22-293
work_keys_str_mv AT zhoukailong efficacyoftwodifferenttypesofislandflapsfortherepairofdiabeticfootulcersontheheel
AT zhuzhenhua efficacyoftwodifferenttypesofislandflapsfortherepairofdiabeticfootulcersontheheel
AT zuozhicheng efficacyoftwodifferenttypesofislandflapsfortherepairofdiabeticfootulcersontheheel
AT zhaojiaju efficacyoftwodifferenttypesofislandflapsfortherepairofdiabeticfootulcersontheheel