A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Perforator-Based Propeller Flap Application in Pressure Ulcer Reconstruction: A Comparative Analysis With Advancement Flaps. | LitMetric

Perforator-Based Propeller Flap Application in Pressure Ulcer Reconstruction: A Comparative Analysis With Advancement Flaps.

Microsurgery

Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam-si, Republic of Korea.

Published: January 2025


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: Pressure ulcers are a prevalent and debilitating condition, often necessitating surgical reconstruction. Various flap techniques, such as Advancement Flaps (AF) and Perforator-based Propeller Flaps (PBPF), are commonly used for pressure sore reconstruction. While both techniques have proven effective, there is limited research comparing their outcomes in different clinical scenarios. In recent years, PBPF has demonstrated favorable outcomes in various reconstruction fields. However, there remains a need to establish the optimal technique for specific clinical conditions and patient populations. Therefore, this study aims to compare the outcomes of PBPF and AF in patients undergoing pressure ulcer reconstruction.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent pressure sore reconstruction utilizing either AF or PBPF techniques between January 2020 and December 2023. Data on demographics, pressure ulcer details, operative time, hospital stay, recurrence rate, and complications were collected and analyzed.

Results: In this study of 56 patients, 30 underwent AF, and 26 underwent PBPF. Demographic and clinical characteristics showed no significant differences. Clinical and surgical outcomes indicated no significant differences in defect size (p = 0.517), hospitalization period (p = 0.786), follow-up duration (p = 0.746), number of preoperative debridements (p = 0.781), time to recurrence (p = 0.224), or postoperative complications (p = 0.757). However, PBPF resulted in a smaller flap size (93.7 ± 29.5 cm for AF vs. 70.5 ± 19.7 cm for PBPF, p < 0.001), a longer operation time compared to AF (94.6 ± 39.1 min for AF vs. 161.0 ± 38.9 min for PBPF, p < 0.001), and lower recurrence rate in long-term follow-up (p = 0.036).

Conclusions: PBPF may have the drawback of prolonged surgical time due to the complexity of the surgical procedure. However, when applied appropriately, it can be a meaningful surgical approach for reducing the recurrence rate of pressure ulcers.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/micr.70018DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

pressure ulcer
12
perforator-based propeller
8
advancement flaps
8
pressure sore
8
sore reconstruction
8
patients underwent
8
pbpf
7
pressure
6
reconstruction
5
propeller flap
4

Similar Publications