The Experts below are selected from a list of 365847 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Minghuei Cheng - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
pedicle perforator Flaps for vulvar reconstruction new generation of less invasive vulvar reconstruction with favorable results
Gynecologic Oncology, 2015Co-Authors: Jungju Huang, Naijen Chang, Hunghsueh Chou, Mohamed Abdelrahman, Hsinyu Chen, Minghuei ChengAbstract:Abstract Objectives Vulvar reconstruction after cancer surgery remains challenging. Pedicle perforator Flaps are believed to be a less invasive option with better cosmesis. Methods A retrospective review identified 27 Flaps in 16 patients who underwent vulvar reconstruction after cancer surgery using island pedicled perforator Flaps. Their average age was 55.7±17.8years (Range: 22–85). The average BMI was 23.5±4.0 (range: 18.8–28.5). Five of the 16 patients underwent unilateral vulvar reconstruction, and 11 of them underwent bilateral vulvar–perineal reconstructions. The perforator Flaps included deep femoral (profunda) artery perforator (DFAP or PAP) Flaps (n=11), medial circumflex femoral perforator (MCFAP) Flaps (n=8), external pudendal artery perforator (EPAP) Flaps (n=2), medial thigh free style perforator Flaps (n=2), and internal pudendal artery perforator Flaps (n=4). Results All Flaps survived with a 100% success rate. Three patients developed small wounds that required debridement and closure after the reconstruction. All donor sites were closed primarily. One patient developed temporary peroneal nerve palsy. During follow-up, none of the patients presented with donor site morbidities. All of the patients were satisfied with the cosmetic and functional results, except that one patient underwent a flap debulking procedure three months after surgery. Conclusions Compared to traditional myocutaneous Flaps, perforator Flaps provide thinner fasciocutaneous Flaps for vulvar reconstruction with favorable reconstruction results and fewer donor site morbidities. The medial or inner thigh is a region that is rich in perforators, which allow for more versatile flap design according to the defect. Furthermore, most of the donor site can be closed primarily without complications.
Benoit Chaput - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Free versus perforator-pedicled propeller Flaps in lower extremity reconstruction: What is the safest coverage? A meta-analysis
Microsurgery, 2018Co-Authors: Farid Bekara, Christian Herlin, Serge Somda, Antoine Runz, Jean Louis Grolleau, Benoit ChaputAbstract:INTRODUCTION: Currently, increasingly reconstructive surgeon consider the failure rates of perforator propeller Flaps especially in the distal third of the lower leg are too important and prefer to return to the use of free flap at first line option with failure rates frequently lower than 5%. So, we performed a systematic review with meta-analysis comparing free Flaps (perforator-based or not) and pedicled-propeller Flaps to respond to the question "what is the safest coverage for distal third of the lower limb?" METHODS: This review was conducted according to PRISMA criteria. From 1991 to 2015, MEDLINE\textregistered, Pubmed central, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched. The pooled estimations were performed by meta-analysis. The homogeneity Q statistic and the I2 index were computed. RESULTS: We included 36 articles for free Flaps (1,226 Flaps) and 19 articles for pedicled-propeller Flaps (302 Flaps). The overall failure rate was 3.9% [95%CI:2.6-5.3] for free Flaps and 2.77% [95%CI:0.0-5.6] for pedicled-propeller Flaps (P = 0.36). The complication rates were 19.0% for free Flaps and 21.4% for pedicled-propeller Flaps (P = 0.37). In more detail, we noted for free Flaps versus pedicled-propeller Flaps: partial necrosis (2.70 vs. 6.88%, P = 0.001%), wound dehiscence (2.38 vs. 0.26%, P = 0.018), infection (4.45 vs. 1.22%, P = 0.009). The coverage failure rate was 5.24% [95%CI:3.68-6.81] versus 2.99% [95%CI:0.38-5.60] without significant difference (P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: In the lower limb the complications are not rare and many teams consider the free Flaps to be safer. In this meta-analysis we provide evidence that failure and overall complications rate of perforator propeller Flaps are comparable with free Flaps. Although, partial necrosis is significantly higher for pedicled-propeller Flaps than free Flaps, in reality the success of coverage appears similar. \textcopyright 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery, 38:109-119, 2018.
M Benoit D Chaput - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
free versus perforator pedicled propeller Flaps in lower extremity reconstruction what is the safest coverage a meta analysis
Microsurgery, 2018Co-Authors: M Farid D Bekara, Christian Herlin, Serge Somda, M Antoine D De Runz, M Jean Louis D Grolleau, M Benoit D ChaputAbstract:Introduction Currently, increasingly reconstructive surgeon consider the failure rates of perforator propeller Flaps especially in the distal third of the lower leg are too important and prefer to return to the use of free flap at first line option with failure rates frequently lower than 5%. So, we performed a systematic review with meta-analysis comparing free Flaps (perforator-based or not) and pedicled-propeller Flaps to respond to the question “what is the safest coverage for distal third of the lower limb?” Methods This review was conducted according to PRISMA criteria. From 1991 to 2015, MEDLINE®, Pubmed central, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched. The pooled estimations were performed by meta-analysis. The homogeneity Q statistic and the I2 index were computed. Results We included 36 articles for free Flaps (1,226 Flaps) and 19 articles for pedicled-propeller Flaps (302 Flaps). The overall failure rate was 3.9% [95%CI:2.6–5.3] for free Flaps and 2.77% [95%CI:0.0–5.6] for pedicled-propeller Flaps (P = 0.36). The complication rates were 19.0% for free Flaps and 21.4% for pedicled-propeller Flaps (P = 0.37). In more detail, we noted for free Flaps versus pedicled-propeller Flaps: partial necrosis (2.70 vs. 6.88%, P = 0.001%), wound dehiscence (2.38 vs. 0.26%, P = 0.018), infection (4.45 vs. 1.22%, P = 0.009). The coverage failure rate was 5.24% [95%CI:3.68–6.81] versus 2.99% [95%CI:0.38–5.60] without significant difference (P = 0.016). Conclusion In the lower limb the complications are not rare and many teams consider the free Flaps to be safer. In this meta-analysis we provide evidence that failure and overall complications rate of perforator propeller Flaps are comparable with free Flaps. Although, partial necrosis is significantly higher for pedicled-propeller Flaps than free Flaps, in reality the success of coverage appears similar. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery, 2016.
Serge Somda - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Free versus perforator-pedicled propeller Flaps in lower extremity reconstruction: What is the safest coverage? A meta-analysis
Microsurgery, 2018Co-Authors: Farid Bekara, Christian Herlin, Serge Somda, Antoine Runz, Jean Louis Grolleau, Benoit ChaputAbstract:INTRODUCTION: Currently, increasingly reconstructive surgeon consider the failure rates of perforator propeller Flaps especially in the distal third of the lower leg are too important and prefer to return to the use of free flap at first line option with failure rates frequently lower than 5%. So, we performed a systematic review with meta-analysis comparing free Flaps (perforator-based or not) and pedicled-propeller Flaps to respond to the question "what is the safest coverage for distal third of the lower limb?" METHODS: This review was conducted according to PRISMA criteria. From 1991 to 2015, MEDLINE\textregistered, Pubmed central, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched. The pooled estimations were performed by meta-analysis. The homogeneity Q statistic and the I2 index were computed. RESULTS: We included 36 articles for free Flaps (1,226 Flaps) and 19 articles for pedicled-propeller Flaps (302 Flaps). The overall failure rate was 3.9% [95%CI:2.6-5.3] for free Flaps and 2.77% [95%CI:0.0-5.6] for pedicled-propeller Flaps (P = 0.36). The complication rates were 19.0% for free Flaps and 21.4% for pedicled-propeller Flaps (P = 0.37). In more detail, we noted for free Flaps versus pedicled-propeller Flaps: partial necrosis (2.70 vs. 6.88%, P = 0.001%), wound dehiscence (2.38 vs. 0.26%, P = 0.018), infection (4.45 vs. 1.22%, P = 0.009). The coverage failure rate was 5.24% [95%CI:3.68-6.81] versus 2.99% [95%CI:0.38-5.60] without significant difference (P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: In the lower limb the complications are not rare and many teams consider the free Flaps to be safer. In this meta-analysis we provide evidence that failure and overall complications rate of perforator propeller Flaps are comparable with free Flaps. Although, partial necrosis is significantly higher for pedicled-propeller Flaps than free Flaps, in reality the success of coverage appears similar. \textcopyright 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery, 38:109-119, 2018.
-
free versus perforator pedicled propeller Flaps in lower extremity reconstruction what is the safest coverage a meta analysis
Microsurgery, 2018Co-Authors: M Farid D Bekara, Christian Herlin, Serge Somda, M Antoine D De Runz, M Jean Louis D Grolleau, M Benoit D ChaputAbstract:Introduction Currently, increasingly reconstructive surgeon consider the failure rates of perforator propeller Flaps especially in the distal third of the lower leg are too important and prefer to return to the use of free flap at first line option with failure rates frequently lower than 5%. So, we performed a systematic review with meta-analysis comparing free Flaps (perforator-based or not) and pedicled-propeller Flaps to respond to the question “what is the safest coverage for distal third of the lower limb?” Methods This review was conducted according to PRISMA criteria. From 1991 to 2015, MEDLINE®, Pubmed central, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched. The pooled estimations were performed by meta-analysis. The homogeneity Q statistic and the I2 index were computed. Results We included 36 articles for free Flaps (1,226 Flaps) and 19 articles for pedicled-propeller Flaps (302 Flaps). The overall failure rate was 3.9% [95%CI:2.6–5.3] for free Flaps and 2.77% [95%CI:0.0–5.6] for pedicled-propeller Flaps (P = 0.36). The complication rates were 19.0% for free Flaps and 21.4% for pedicled-propeller Flaps (P = 0.37). In more detail, we noted for free Flaps versus pedicled-propeller Flaps: partial necrosis (2.70 vs. 6.88%, P = 0.001%), wound dehiscence (2.38 vs. 0.26%, P = 0.018), infection (4.45 vs. 1.22%, P = 0.009). The coverage failure rate was 5.24% [95%CI:3.68–6.81] versus 2.99% [95%CI:0.38–5.60] without significant difference (P = 0.016). Conclusion In the lower limb the complications are not rare and many teams consider the free Flaps to be safer. In this meta-analysis we provide evidence that failure and overall complications rate of perforator propeller Flaps are comparable with free Flaps. Although, partial necrosis is significantly higher for pedicled-propeller Flaps than free Flaps, in reality the success of coverage appears similar. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery, 2016.
Christian Herlin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Free versus perforator-pedicled propeller Flaps in lower extremity reconstruction: What is the safest coverage? A meta-analysis
Microsurgery, 2018Co-Authors: Farid Bekara, Christian Herlin, Serge Somda, Antoine Runz, Jean Louis Grolleau, Benoit ChaputAbstract:INTRODUCTION: Currently, increasingly reconstructive surgeon consider the failure rates of perforator propeller Flaps especially in the distal third of the lower leg are too important and prefer to return to the use of free flap at first line option with failure rates frequently lower than 5%. So, we performed a systematic review with meta-analysis comparing free Flaps (perforator-based or not) and pedicled-propeller Flaps to respond to the question "what is the safest coverage for distal third of the lower limb?" METHODS: This review was conducted according to PRISMA criteria. From 1991 to 2015, MEDLINE\textregistered, Pubmed central, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched. The pooled estimations were performed by meta-analysis. The homogeneity Q statistic and the I2 index were computed. RESULTS: We included 36 articles for free Flaps (1,226 Flaps) and 19 articles for pedicled-propeller Flaps (302 Flaps). The overall failure rate was 3.9% [95%CI:2.6-5.3] for free Flaps and 2.77% [95%CI:0.0-5.6] for pedicled-propeller Flaps (P = 0.36). The complication rates were 19.0% for free Flaps and 21.4% for pedicled-propeller Flaps (P = 0.37). In more detail, we noted for free Flaps versus pedicled-propeller Flaps: partial necrosis (2.70 vs. 6.88%, P = 0.001%), wound dehiscence (2.38 vs. 0.26%, P = 0.018), infection (4.45 vs. 1.22%, P = 0.009). The coverage failure rate was 5.24% [95%CI:3.68-6.81] versus 2.99% [95%CI:0.38-5.60] without significant difference (P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: In the lower limb the complications are not rare and many teams consider the free Flaps to be safer. In this meta-analysis we provide evidence that failure and overall complications rate of perforator propeller Flaps are comparable with free Flaps. Although, partial necrosis is significantly higher for pedicled-propeller Flaps than free Flaps, in reality the success of coverage appears similar. \textcopyright 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery, 38:109-119, 2018.
-
free versus perforator pedicled propeller Flaps in lower extremity reconstruction what is the safest coverage a meta analysis
Microsurgery, 2018Co-Authors: M Farid D Bekara, Christian Herlin, Serge Somda, M Antoine D De Runz, M Jean Louis D Grolleau, M Benoit D ChaputAbstract:Introduction Currently, increasingly reconstructive surgeon consider the failure rates of perforator propeller Flaps especially in the distal third of the lower leg are too important and prefer to return to the use of free flap at first line option with failure rates frequently lower than 5%. So, we performed a systematic review with meta-analysis comparing free Flaps (perforator-based or not) and pedicled-propeller Flaps to respond to the question “what is the safest coverage for distal third of the lower limb?” Methods This review was conducted according to PRISMA criteria. From 1991 to 2015, MEDLINE®, Pubmed central, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched. The pooled estimations were performed by meta-analysis. The homogeneity Q statistic and the I2 index were computed. Results We included 36 articles for free Flaps (1,226 Flaps) and 19 articles for pedicled-propeller Flaps (302 Flaps). The overall failure rate was 3.9% [95%CI:2.6–5.3] for free Flaps and 2.77% [95%CI:0.0–5.6] for pedicled-propeller Flaps (P = 0.36). The complication rates were 19.0% for free Flaps and 21.4% for pedicled-propeller Flaps (P = 0.37). In more detail, we noted for free Flaps versus pedicled-propeller Flaps: partial necrosis (2.70 vs. 6.88%, P = 0.001%), wound dehiscence (2.38 vs. 0.26%, P = 0.018), infection (4.45 vs. 1.22%, P = 0.009). The coverage failure rate was 5.24% [95%CI:3.68–6.81] versus 2.99% [95%CI:0.38–5.60] without significant difference (P = 0.016). Conclusion In the lower limb the complications are not rare and many teams consider the free Flaps to be safer. In this meta-analysis we provide evidence that failure and overall complications rate of perforator propeller Flaps are comparable with free Flaps. Although, partial necrosis is significantly higher for pedicled-propeller Flaps than free Flaps, in reality the success of coverage appears similar. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery, 2016.
