Sur, Yoo Joon

Background: The superficial femoral artery and medial thigh region has been an underused donor site for perforator flaps. This study evaluated perforasomes of the superficial femoral artery and its principal branches to review the clinical applications for locoregional reconstruction. Methods: Twenty-six fresh cadaveric lower extremities were dissected. Perforator size and anatomical course from the superficial femoral artery, descending genicular artery, and saphenous artery branch were documented. Perforators were selectively injected with iodinated contrast to assess vascular territories using computed tomography. A retrospective chart review was conducted on consecutive patients (2014 to 2015). Results: One hundred thirty perforators were mapped in the medial thigh region. Eleven extended medial thigh perforator flaps and 15 hemicircumferential flaps were harvested. The mean distance from the joint line was 16.7 ± 7.3 cm. Perforators arose from the superficial femoral artery (62 percent), saphenous artery branch (23 percent), and descending genicular artery (15 percent). Superficial femoral artery perforators were located around the mid and proximal thigh region (p < 0.001). The median perforasome surface area was 244 cm2, representing 36 percent in hemithigh flaps with preferential filling in the anteromedial region. Proximal perforasomes were the smallest. Perforasome areas based on vessel origin were comparable; however, saphenous artery perforators had a broader perforasome compared with descending genicular (p = 0.01) and superficial femoral artery perforators (p = 0.04). Six clinical case examples were presented for knee, thigh, and lower leg reconstruction. Conclusions: The superficial femoral artery or its branches can provide nontraditional reconstructive perforator flap options in regional reconstruction. They can be simple to harvest using a free-style approach, do not require preoperative imaging, offer a one-stage reconstructive method with low morbidity, and obviate the need for microsurgery or muscle flaps.

Background: Various vascular pedicles have been used to supply the proximal fibula for vascularized epiphyseal transfer. The optimal pedicle has, however, not been agreed on. This study aimed to describe the detailed vascular anatomy of the proximal fibula to assist the surgeon in choosing the optimal pedicle. Methods: Twenty-eight lower extremities were injected with latex or a mixture of latex and barium sulfate. Vessels supplying the proximal fibula were identified and dissected, and the course, diameter, anatomical relations, length, and branches were documented. In the barium group, high-resolution computed tomographic scanning was conducted before dissection. In seven specimens, branches of the deep peroneal nerve to the tibialis anterior muscle were carefully preserved, and their relation to the proximal fibular vascularity was noted. Results: An anastomotic vascular network supplied the proximal fibula. This was formed superiorly by branches of the inferior lateral genicular artery, and inferiorly by branches of the anterior tibial artery, the most important of which were the first and second recurrent epiphyseal arteries. One or more deep peroneal nerve branches passed deep to the first recurrent epiphyseal artery in all specimens examined. In five specimens, all of the branches were superficial to the second recurrent epiphyseal artery, whereas two had branches deep to it. Conclusions: The proximal fibula can be transferred using the inferior lateral genicular or anterior tibial artery because of the existing anastomosis. Factors including length of pedicle, potential for nerve injury, and diaphyseal portion to be harvested should be considered in the pedicle choice.