Skip to content

Use of Perforator Flaps for Leg and Foot Reconstruction

Use of Perforator Flaps for Leg and Foot Reconstruction

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03269864
Enrollment
40
Registered
2017-09-01
Start date
2017-09-05
Completion date
2019-08-01
Last updated
2017-09-01

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Post Traumatic Skin Defect in Leg and Foot

Brief summary

Perforator vessels are those where the source artery is deep and the branch that carries blood to the fasciocutaneous tissues passes through the overlying deep fascia. Soft tissue defects in the lower extremity, especially distal third of leg, present a challenge to reconstructive surgeons due to lack of reliable local flaps, conventional reconstructive options include split skin grafting, local random fasciocutaneous flaps, cross leg fasciocutaneous flap, pedicled muscular or musculocutaneous flaps or microvascular free tissue transfer. All these procedures have their limitations and associated morbidity at donor site

Detailed description

Taylor and Palmer defined an angiosome as a three-dimensional vascular territory supplied by a source artery and vein through branches for all tissue layers between the skin and the bone, and showed that between neighboring angiosomes there are choked and true anastomotic arteries. Koshima and Soeda in 1989, described an inferior epigastric artery skin flap without the rectus abdominis muscle for reconstruction of floor of mouth, began the era of perforator flaps. The big popularity gained by the local perforator flaps was due to their main advantages: 1) Sparing of the source artery and underlying muscle and fascia, 2) Combining the very good blood supply of a musculocutaneous flap with the reduced donor-site morbidity of a skin flap, 3) Replacing like with like, 4) Limiting the donor-site to the same area, 5) Possibility of completely or partially primarily closure, 6) Technically less demanding, because they are microsurgical procedures, but without microvascular sutures, 7) Shorter operating time.

Interventions

PROCEDUREperforator flaps

40 patients with post traumatic skin defect at leg and foot will be managed by perforator flaps, 20 with pedicled perforator flaps and other 20 with free perforator flaps

Sponsors

Assiut University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

two arms, one will be managed by pedicled perforator flaps the other will be managed by free perforator flaps

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
6 Years to 60 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

1. Traumatic soft tissue defects on foot and leg. 2. Simple defects i.e., soft tissue loss, with or without, tendon injury. 3. Patients from 6 years to 60 years old

Exclusion criteria

1. Other causes of soft tissue defects e.g. (Diabetic, Vascular, post malignant resection). 2. Complex defects (soft tissue with bone injury). 3. Patients below 6 years or above 60 years old. 4. Patients with debilitating diseases e.g chronic renal failure, diabetes mellitus….etc.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Assessment of the perforator flapThis will be assessed in the first week postoperativeThe perforator flap will be assessed regarding (color, temperature, capillary refilling, congestion, blistering).

Contacts

Primary ContactYoussef Saleh Hassan, prof
plasticclinic66@gmail.com01001166118
Backup ContactAhmed Kamal Osman, Dr
ahmedkamal@aun.edu.eg01060118001

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026