Disposal of the small saphenous vein trunks during sural neurocutaneous island flap transplantation for repairing soft tissue defects of the foot and ankle

doi:10.3321/j.issn:1673-8225.2008.40.018

Abstract：BACKGROUND: Scholars disagree with each other about the small saphenous vein effects on skin flap and how to dispose vascular proximal pedicles.OBJECTIVE: To analyze effects of different methods of the small saphenous vein disposal on flap survival using sural neurocutaneous island flap retrograde metastasis for repairing defects of soft tissue of instep, heelstick and ankle.DESIGN, TIME AND SETTING: The case control observation experiment was performed at the General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Area Command of Chinese PLA from March 1998 to April 2007.PARTICIPANTS: A total of 56 patients with defects of soft tissue of instep, heelstick and ankle were divided into 2 groups,small sapbenous vein deligation in proximal pedicle flap group (group A) (n=38), and proximal small saphenous vein and great saphenous vein or tributaries at recipient site anastomosis flap group (group B) (n=18).METHODS: During sural neurocutaneous island flap retrograde metastasis for repair,(3.5×4.0)cm-(4.0×4.5) cm flap was obtained in 35 cases, and (4.0×4.5) cm -(10.0×12.0) cm in 21 cases.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome of flap survival at different incision area and implanted methods.RESULTS: No vein articulo occurred in 21 cases, which flap areas were (4.0×4.5) cm -(10.0×12.0) cm. Five of 35 cases which flap areas were (3.5×4.0) cm -(4.0×4.5) cm developed vein articulo.The necrotic rate of flaps in group B was significantly lower compared to the group A (P=0.017 67).CONCLUSION: When the area of skin flap is smaller than (4.0×4.5) cm, the proximal end of the small saphenous vein should be anastomosed with the great saphenous vein or tributaries connecting with the great saphenous vein at recipient site.The small saphenous vein is not a superficial vein, which only cross the skin flap, but it has trophic action on the skin flap.