Angiosome-Guided Revascularization in Local Flap Reconstruction of the Foot and Ankle: Comparable Outcomes With Both Direct and Indirect Revascularization.

Abstract

Background: Among patients with critical limb ischemia and tissue loss, revascularization is an essential component for limb salvage. Local flaps of the foot and ankle remain a versatile tool in reconstructive limb salvage but is dependent on adequate arterial flow. In patients with arterial occlusive disease requiring revascularization, there is a lack of evidence in the current literature investigating on the necessity of direct arterial flow to the respective angiosome for local flaps reconstruction. Our study thereby compares the outcomes of direct (DR) and indirect (IR) revascularization for local flap success.

Methods: Patients who received endovascular revascularization (ER) prior to local flap reconstruction for chronic wounds in the foot and ankle were retrospectively reviewed. IR was performed in patients where DR could not be performed. DR was defined as an intervention on the same pedicle used for the local flap. IR was defined as an intervention performed on a different angiosome than the pedicle used for the local flap. Patient demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), angiographic details, postoperative complications, and long-term outcomes were collected.

Results: A total of 33 patients underwent 43 local flap reconstruction with preoperative ER: 58.1% (n = 25) received DR and 41.2% (n = 18) received IR. Patients had a mean CCI of 6.7 ± 1.8, with a high prevalence of diabetes mellitus (93.9%), peripheral arterial disease (90.9%), and end-stage renal disease (33.3%) with no significant differences between groups. In the immediate postoperative period (postoperative day 0 to 12), there were no significant differences in immediate flap success (DR: 100% vs IR: 88.9%, P = 0.169) or partial flap necrosis between (DR: 0.0% vs IR: 16.7%, P = 0.066). Rates of major complications from infection (DR: 28.2% vs IR: 22.2%, P = 0.736), ischemia (DR: 4.0% vs IR: 11.1%, P = 0.562), or dehiscence (DR: 8.0% vs IR: 16.7%, P = 0.634) requiring reoperation were similar between 2 groups. Overall limb salvage rate was 84.9%, and comparable between groups (DR: 78.6% vs IR: 89.5%, P = 0.628).

Conclusions: DR and IR achieve similar rates of limb salvage and flap success after local flap reconstruction. A multidisciplinary vasculo-plastic approach that incorporates preoperative arteriogram and revascularization should be utilized for this highly comorbid patient population to achieve optimal success and limb salvage.