Advertisement

European Journal of Plastic Surgery

, Volume 41, Issue 5, pp 495–504 | Cite as

Color Doppler ultrasonography targeted reconstruction using pedicled perforator flaps—a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Rami Mossad Ibrahim
  • Gudjon Leifur Gunnarsson
  • Javed Akram
  • Jens Ahm Sørensen
  • Jørn Bo Thomsen
Open Access
Review

Abstract

Background

Flaps are increasingly popularized in reconstructive surgery and there is need to test and increase their reliability. Color Doppler ultrasound has been stated to be valuable in flap planning. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature of Color Doppler ultrasound targeted pedicled perforator flaps and provide information on outcomes and complication rates.

Method

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted for articles published until April 2017 in PubMed and Embase. We aimed to include randomized clinical trials, meta-analysis, prospective studies, case-control studies, and cohort studies written in English. We included studies where CDU was used to identify the perforator(s) prior to surgery. We evaluated the quality of the included studies using checklists recommended by the Cochrane group.

Results

From the initial 219 studies, only 12 studies using Color Doppler targeted pedicled perforator flaps in 252 cases met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eleven of these were case series and one a prospective study. The incidence of major complications was 8% (21/252) and minor complications was 14%, comprising of mostly necrosis 8% (24/252) and venous congestion 8% (21/252).

Conclusions

The reconstructive success rate following pedicled perforator flap reconstruction targeted by CDU appears to be high and the procedure provides a wide scope of applications and margin of safety. It is evident that the risk of venous congestion is 11 times greater in the lower extremities than the truncus, a finding that needs further attention in future studies.

Level of Evidence: Level IV, risk/prognostic study

Keywords

CDU Perforator Reconstruction Pedicled Flaps 

Introduction

Knowledge about perforator anatomy has led to an increased use of pedicled perforator flaps for reconstruction throughout the body [1]. Pedicled perforator flaps allow the surgeon to relocate local tissue and facilitate a simple reorganization, which enables an optimal cosmetic and functional reconstructive outcome. They provide a fast and simple, single-stage solution and offer an alternative to microsurgery or skin graft [2].

Handheld Doppler and color Doppler ultrasonography (CDU) have been shown to be useful to identify perforators and aid in the planning of flap reconstructions [2].

CDU provides additional visual information about available soft tissue, vessel flow patterns, vessel course through the soft tissue as well as perforator size and location. However, the use of CDU is not widely reported for use in the planning of pedicled perforator flaps reconstruction [3].

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the existing literature regarding color Doppler ultrasonography used to identify perforators for pedicled perforator flap reconstruction and evaluate the associated risk of major and minor complications.

Methods

This systematic review was conducted according to the recommendations outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for reviews [4] and the PRISMA statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) [5].

Literature search

We performed a literature review regarding the use of CDU in the preoperative assessment and planning of pedicled perforator flap reconstruction in April 2017 in the PubMed and EMBASE databases, using the search string:

((CDU OR color doppler ultrasound OR color doppler ultrasonography OR ultrasound)) AND (perforator flap) AND (pedicled)

The search yielded 71 studies. The retrieved articles were reviewed and their bibliographies were scanned for publications relevant for this review (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Prisma flow diagram of the number of records identified, included, and excluded, and the reasons for exclusions

Inclusion criteria

We planned to include randomized clinical trials, meta-analysis, prospective studies, case-control studies, and cohort studies written in English. We only included studies where CDU was used to identify the perforator(s) prior to surgery using pedicled perforator flaps for reconstruction of local defects.

We recorded demographics, etiology and location of the defect, the type of pedicled perforator flap used, size of the flap, and arc of rotation. We also recorded minor complications defined by conservative treatment or by use of local anesthesia and major complications defined by return to the operating theater in general anesthesia (Table 1, Fig. 2).
Table 1

Characteristics of the included studies including complications

First authors, year, location (reference)

Information regarding CDU

Number of flaps

Type/location of flaps

Arc of rotation

Size of flap

Complications

Major

Minor

Zang 2015

Doppler ultrasound probe was used to identify at least two large perforators adjacent to the defects at different intercostal spaces. Then, the one with the most prominent Doppler signals was selected as the preferred supply for the flap.

9

Truncus:

1 DICAP

4 DLICAP

3 LICAP

1 AICAP

4 = 150°

5 = 180°

6 × 6 cm–30 × 20 cm

2 flaps partial necrosis that needed repair with AICAP propeller flaps

1 flap marginal necrosis (2 cm)

Hamdi 2015

No information

31

Truncus:

18 TDAP

10 MS-LD

3 ICAP

No information

Length: 16–25 cm

Width: 6–10 cm

Average size: 20 × 8 cm

Partial flap necrosis occurred in 2 cases. Both necessitated a surgical debridement and direct closure.

A small skin slough occurred in one TAP flap that healed spontaneously. Minor wound dehiscence in the donor site occurred in 2 patients (6%). 4 flaps experienced venous congestion.

Gravannis 2006

All measurements were performed by the same observer using an ATL 3500 (Philips, Bothell, WA, USA) ultrasound machine equipped with a 5-MHz and 7.5-MHz linear color Doppler transducer.

11

Truncus:

4 ALT

Lower limb:

7ALT

180°

Length: 15–22 cm

Width: 8–11 cm

All flaps survived completely, resulting in excellent functional and esthetic results.

1 patient with slightly limited range of motion. 2 patients with muscle weakness that resolved after 6 months.

Innocenti 2015

No information

14

Upper limb:

14 radial forearm flap

180°

No information

1 case used for thenar eminence resurfacing developed necrosis and needed salvage with kite flap.

2 patients with venous congestion that relieved spontaneously, 1 patient with epidermolysis.

Tos 2011

No information

22

Lower limb:

6 peroneal artery perforator

13 posterior tibial artery perforator

1 genicular artery perforator

1 lateral circumflex artery perforator

1 deep femoral artery perforator

80°–180°

3 × 5 cm–12 × 25cm

1 flap necrosis of 50% treated with skin graft, 1 flap necrosis 80%, and 1 diabetic patient with epidermolysis that needed skin graft

5 patients had a limited superficial epidermolysis for venous congestion that resolved spontaneously. 3 patients showed transient venous congestion of the flap. Prolonged leg edema with spontaneous resolution was observed in a patient with a large propeller flap covering an Achilles tendon allograft.

Pignatti 2007

No information

6

Lower limb:

No detailed description on perforator origin

2 × 90°, 2 × 135°, and 2 × 180°

8 × 9 cm–25 × 12cm

None

One flap with small superficial necrosis of the tip, due to venous congestion because of inclusion in the design of an already scarred tissue at the tip of the flap. One other patient with a transient venous congestion was observed that resolved spontaneously.

Gunnarson 2015

Used a BK Medical color Doppler ultrasonographer with a 10–12 MHz linear transducer. The settings were set for small peripheral vessels and low flow velocity to enable detection of flow in the perforators.

17

12 Upper limb

13 Lower limb

9 Truncus

No detailed description on perforator origin

21 × 90°–13 × 180°

1.5 × 3 cm–12 × 22 cm

None

Minor complications were registered in 4/17 (24%); marginal necrosis was significant in 4 cases, however never more than 10% of the total flap size.

Dong 2014

No information

20

Lower limb:

15 peroneal artery perforator

5 posterior tibia artery perforator flap

180°

5 cm × 11 cm–12 cm × 28 cm

None

1 patient had a venous crisis in the 24 h postoperatively, which responded to removal of some of the sutures and drainage of blood.

Jacobs 2015

No information

99

Truncus:

99 TAP

No information

7 × 21cm–11 × 37cm

1 hematoma, 2 venous congestion that needed surgical intervention and partial flap necrosis in 7.

14 patients with minor complications not described further.

Moscatiello 2007

No information

6

Lower limb:

6 ALT perforator

180°

No information

1 flap with partial necrosis > 20% and the defect was covered with medial gastrocnemius flap

None

Umemoto 2009

No information

4

Lower limb:

4 sural artery perforator

No information

4 × 6 cm–10 × 20 cm

None

None

Jakubietz 2014

No information

7

Lower limb:

3 posterior tibial artery perforator

1 anterior tibial artery perforator

3 peroneal artery perforator

90°–180°

4 × 7 cm–5 × 24 cm

In 1 patient, a noninsulin-dependent diabetic smoker, tip necrosis became apparent 4 days postoperatively. Debridement of the distal part of the flap, negative pressure therapy, and skin graft. In 1 patient with peripheral vascular disease developed superficial epidermolysis in both tips of flap, which also required skin grafting 10 days after the first surgery.

None

DICAP dorsal intercostal artery perforator, DLICAP dorsolateral intercostal artery perforator, LICAP lateral intercostal artery perforator, AICAP anterior intercostal artery perforator, TDAP/TAP thoracodorsal artery perforator, MS-LD muscle sparring latissimus dorsi, ICAP intercostal artery perforator, ALT anterolateral thigh

Fig. 2

Figures showing distribution of etiologies (left), distribution of flap type (right)

Quality assessment of the studies

We evaluated the quality of the included studies using checklists recommended by the Cochrane group [6]. The Carmen Mogas checklist was used to evaluate the quality of case series and prospective chart reviews [7]. Six questions were not applicable and thus omitted (Table 2).
Table 2

Critical appraisal of included studies using the Institute of Health Economics Quality Appraisal tool

Article authors

Quality appraisal

 

Study objectivea

Study designb

Study populationc

Interventiond

Outcome measurese

Statistical analysisf

Results and conclusionsg

Competing interests and sources of supporth

Total

Zang 2015

1

0

1

1

1

1

4

1

10

Hamdi 2015

1

0

1

1

1

1

3

0

8

Gravannis 2006

1

0

1

1

1

1

3

0

8

Innocenti 2015

0

0

1

1

1

1

4

1

9

Tos 2011

1

0

1

1

1

1

4

1

10

Gunnarson 2014

1

0

1

1

1

1

3

1

9

Dong 2014

1

0

1

1

1

1

4

1

10

Jacobs 2015

1

0

1

1

1

1

4

1

10

Moscatiello 2007

1

0

1

1

1

1

4

0

9

Umemoto 2009

1

0

1

1

1

1

4

0

9

Pignatti

1

0

1

1

1

1

3

0

8

Jakubietz 2014

1

0

1

1

1

1

4

1

10

aMaximum score 1, bMaximum score 2, cMaximum score 1, dMaximum score 1, eMaximum score 2, fMaximum score 1, gMaximum score 4, hMaximum score 1; studies with total scores of ≥ 70% are considered to be of acceptable quality (19)

Statistical analysis

We conducted a meta-analysis for outcomes of complications; any necrosis, venous congestion, and flap loss. We calculated proportions with a 95% confidence interval (CI) based on a random-effects model due to the heterogeneous nature of the studies [8]. The heterogeneity was investigated using chi-squared and the I2 statistics. All statistical analyses were conducted using Stata/IC 14.0 (StataCorp LP) and supervised by a statistician at Odense University Hospital.

Results

We evaluated 71 studies from the research databases and 170 by assessing the reference lists (Fig. 1). We included 12 studies, 11 case series/retrospective chart reviews, and one prospective study. The studies described 252 CDU targeted pedicled perforator flaps used for reconstruction in 246 patients; 72 male, 153 female, and 21 gender not described [3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. The mean age was 53 (36–79) years. The defects needing reconstruction were located in the upper limb in 17/252 cases (7%), lower limb 86/252 (34%), and trunk 149/252 (59%) (Fig. 2). The reconstructive goal was achieved in 247/252 (98%) cases. The size of the flaps used for reconstruction was reported in 240/252 (95%) cases and varied from 4.5 to 600 cm2. In the upper limb, the size of the flaps varied between 4,5 and 136 cm2, 40 and 600 cm2 in the torso, and 15 and 400 cm2 in the lower limb. The main indication for reconstruction was an oncological defect 155/252 (61%), post-traumatic 31/252 (12%), and other surgery 15/252 (6%) (Fig. 2).

Surgical revision in general anesthesia was needed due to major complications in 21/252 (8%) cases. The re-operations were performed due to necrosis 16/252, venous congestion 2/252, hematoma 1/252, and epidermolysis 2/252 (Table 2). There were 36 cases of minor complications (14%) (Table 2). The most frequent was venous congestion 19/252 followed by tip necrosis 13/252, wound dehiscence 2/252, and other reasons 2/252. The meta-analysis yielded summarized complication rates of 0% flap loss, 8% any necrosis, 7% venous congestion throughout the whole body, 11% venous congestion in the extremities, and 1% venous congestion in truncus (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3

Meta-analysis for the effect size of complication rates: Flap loss (top left), necrosis (top right), venous congestion whole body (middle left), venous congestion extremities (middle right), and venous congestion truncus (bottom). Calculated for the random-effects model meta-analysis. I2: the percentage of total variation across studies which is due to heterogeneity

Discussion

Venous congestion was the most common complication in this series, which coincides with previous reports using pedicled perforator flaps for reconstruction [3, 20]. The risk of venous congestion was significantly higher in the lower extremities (11%) than in the torso (1%), as described previously (Fig. 3) [3]. We do not know the reason for the different complication rates between the torso and lower limbs. We speculate if it may be due to the following:
  1. 1)

    A difference in arterial flow and venous return

     
  2. 2)

    A greater vascular pressure in the extremities compared to the central body

     
  3. 3)

    A greater risk of twisting of the veins at the site of fascial penetration in the limbs

     
  4. 4)

    A need for a greater arc of rotation, which was close to 180° in many of the described flaps.

     
The complication rate seems to increase along with an increasing arc of rotation compromising the vascular flow [3, 21]. It seems that the risk of complications is higher in areas where the amount of soft tissue is less abundant, like the distal part of the extremities. This translates to a shorter pedicle and restricted rotation, more prone to twisting and calls for greater dissection of the vessels or a different flap design for compensation (Fig. 5). This is where CDU may be helpful for designing the flap enabling precise planning based on the best-suited perforator, adjacent to the defect and with the best possible course through the subcutaneous tissue (Fig. 4). The use of bi-or multi-lobar flaps might be another solution which can reduce the arc of rotation from 180 to 90° or less [3] (Fig. 5).
Fig. 4

CDU targeted pedicled perforator flap reconstruction following excision of a malignant melanoma (MM) on the anterolateral lower limb. a Two-centimeter excision margin. b The largest perforator identified and the boundary of the possible donorsite marked by a circle. c The perforator identified by CDU. d Two perforators and two different flaps designs. e The MM excised. f The two perforator flaps transposed into the defect. One as a propeller

Fig. 5

Trilobar flap used to limit the arc of rotation. a A carcinoma on the lower limb. b, c CDU identification of the largest accessible perforator adjacent to the defect d Marking of the perforator and a trilobar flap to minimize arc of rotation. e The flap propelled into the defect. f Long-term follow-up

The overall major complication rate was 8% in this review, which was lower than the 14% described by Andrea Sisti et al. in a literature review of 1315 propeller flaps without the use of CDU [20]. However, we cannot use these results to conclude that the use of CDU is associated with an overall lower complication rate although it may show a trend.

Interestingly, most of the included studies were small studies including 20 patients or less. Thus, the complication rates in this review, major 8% and minor 14%, have to be considered in the context of a learning curve setup. Better results should be expected once the learning curve is surpassed [11]. The summed major complication rate of the five smallest studies in this review was 16% compared to 8% overall, which is in accordance with Jiga et al. and Panse et al., who found that the overall outcome can be expected to improve while the complication rate decrease over time [22, 23].

The use of CDU for detection of perforators is observer dependent, which can be exemplified by two studies using CDU for detection of perforators for the harvest of the radial forearm flap. CDU was found to be extremely useful for detecting perforators for the radial forearm flap in one of these studies, yet the other study described difficulties using CDU to identify the perforators, because the signal from the radial artery shielded visualization of the perforators [18, 24]. It is therefore important to facilitate the correct use of CDU, which enables the surgeon to plan and design the pedicled perforator flap for reconstruction using the best available tissue adjacent to the defect, allowing for the least possible arc of rotation and least possible risk of complications, thus securing a successful reconstruction (Fig. 5).

The handheld Doppler is still an important tool for identification of perforators. However, CDU may have some advantages to the handheld Doppler. CDU has been found to be more precise and reliable than the handheld Doppler in the detection of perforating arteries of the anterolateral thigh [25, 26]. The CDU was able to visualize the perforator passage through the fascia, which the handheld Doppler could not. In another study comparing CDU and the handheld Doppler for the detection of the second dorsal metacarpal perforators, CDU identified more cutaneous perforators than the handheld Doppler. Furthermore, in some instances, the handheld Doppler mistook feeding vessels falsely as being perforators [27].

This systematic review revealed that the literature describing color Doppler ultrasonography used to identify perforators for pedicled perforator flap reconstruction of local defects is limited and the findings have some apparent limitations: first of all, the low level of evidence of the included studies. There was just one prospective study and 11 retrospective chart reviews. Secondly, several of the included studies were small case studies. On the other hand, the diversity of flaps and rate of successful reconstructions reported in this review seems to indicate that pedicled perforator flaps are a reliable alternative to other reconstructive options. Correct use of CDU enables the surgeon to target the perforator and plan a pedicled perforator flap for local reconstruction using the available tissue adjacent to the defect with the shortest possible arc of rotation or transposition to minimize the risk complications.

Conclusion

The study revealed an 11 times greater risk of venous congestion when pedicled perforator flaps were raised in the extremities compared to the trunk. There is a learning curve associated with the identification of perforators using CDU. Furthermore, we need to adapt and individualize the flap design with regard to shape and size according to tissue availability and knowledge of perforator whereabouts and course. CDU can be used as a tool to identify perforators for pedicled perforator flap reconstruction; however, the literature related to this subject is limited.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

No funding for this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

Rami Mossad Ibrahim, Gudjon Leifur Gunnarsson, Javed Akram, Jens Ahm Sørensen, and Jørn Bo Thomsen declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

No ethical approval needed for a systematic review.

Informed consent

We have an informed consent from the patients represented in Figs. 4 and 5.

References

  1. 1.
    Gunnarsson GL, Jackson IT (2014) Freestyle facial perforator flaps—a safe reconstructive option for moderate-sized facial defects. Eur J Plast Surg 37:315–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gunnarsson GL, Tei T, Thomsen JB (2016) Color Doppler ultrasonography–targeted perforator mapping and angiosome-based flap reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 77:464–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gunnarsson GL, Jackson IT (2015) The freestyle pedicle perforator flap: a new favorite for the reconstruction of moderate-sized defects of the torso and extremities. Eur J Plast Surg 38:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Higgins JP, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62:e1–e34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JSW, Zhang C, Li S, Sun F, Niu Y, du L (2015) The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med 8:2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moga C, Guo B, Schopflocher D, Harstall C (2012) Development of a quality appraisal tool for case series studies using a modified Delphi technique. Edmont AB Instute Health Economics, AlbertaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schmidt FL, Oh I-S, Hayes TL (2009) Fixed- versus random-effects models in meta-analysis: model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results. Br J Math Stat Psychol 62:97–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zang M, Yu S, Xu L et al (2015) Freestyle perforator-based propeller flap of medial arm for medial elbow reconstruction. Microsurgery 35:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hamdi M, Van Landuyt K, Monstrey S, Blondeel P (2004) Pedicled perforator flaps in breast reconstruction: a new concept. Br J Plast Surg 57:531–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jacobs J, Børsen-koch M, Gunnarsson GL et al (2015) The versatile extended thoracodorsal artery perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 77:1–5Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zang M, Yu S, Xu L, Zhao Z, Zhu S, Ding Q, Liu Y (2015) Intercostal artery perforator propeller flap for reconstruction of trunk defects following sarcoma resection. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 68:822–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dong K, Xu Y, Fan X, Xu LJ, Su XX, Long H, Xu LQ, He XQ (2014) Perforator pedicled propeller flaps for soft tissue coverage of lower leg and foot defects. Orthop Surg 6:42–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tos P, Innocenti M, Artiaco S, Battiston B (2011) Perforator-based propeller flaps treating loss of substance in the lower limb. J Orthopaed Traumatol 12:93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pignatti M, Pasqualini M, Governa M, Bruti M, Rigotti G (2008) Propeller flaps for leg reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 61:777–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jakubietz R, Meffert RH, Jakubietz MG (2010) Reconstruction of soft tissue defects of the achilles tendon with rotation flaps, pedicled propeller flaps and free perforator flaps. Microsurgery 1:1–6Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moscatiello F, Carrera A, Moscatiello F et al (2007) The “propeller” distal anteromedial thigh perforator flap. Anatomic study and clinical applications. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 60:1323–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Innocenti M, Baldrighi C, Delcroix L, Adani R (2009) Local perforator flaps in soft tissue reconstruction of the upper limb. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 41:315–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Umemoto Y, Adachi Y, Ebisawa K (2005) The sural artery perforator flap for coverage of defects of the knee and tibia. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 39:209–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sisti A, D’Aniello C, Fortezza L, Tassinari J, Cuomo R et al (2016) Propeller flaps: a literature review. In Vivo (Brooklyn) 30:351–373PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paik J, Pyon J-K (2016) Risk factor analysis of freestyle propeller flaps. J Reconstr Microsurg 33:026–031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jiga LP, Barac S, Taranu G, Blidisel A, Dornean V, Nistor A, Stoichitoiu T, Geishauser M, Ionac M (2010) The versatility of propeller flaps for lower limb reconstruction in patients with peripheral arterial obstructive disease: initial experience. Ann Plast Surg 64:193–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Panse N, Sahasrabudhe P (2014) Free style perforator based propeller flaps: simple solutions for upper extremity reconstruction! Indian J Plast Surg 47:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Matei I, Georgescu A, Chiroiu B et al (2008) Harvesting of forearm perforator flaps based on intraoperative vascular exploration: clinical experiences and literature review. Microsurgery 28:321–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lethaus B, Loberg C, Kloss-Brandstätter A, Bartella AK, Steiner T, Modabber A, Hölzle F, Teichmann J (2017) Color duplex ultrasonography versus handheld Doppler to plan anterior lateral thigh flaps. Microsurgery 37:388–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cheng H-T, Lin F-Y, Chang SC-N (2013) Diagnostic efficacy of color Doppler ultrasonography in preoperative assessment of anterolateral thigh flap cutaneous perforators: an evidence-based review. Plast Reconstr Surg 131:471e–473eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nanno M, Kodera N, Tomori Y, Hagiwara Y, Takai S (2017) Color Doppler ultrasound assessment for identifying perforator arteries of the second dorsal metacarpal flap. J Orthop Surg 25:230949901668474CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plastic SurgeryOdense University HospitalOdenseDenmark
  2. 2.Plastic Surgery DepartmentHerlev HospitalCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Plastic SurgeryTelemark HospitalSkienNorway
  4. 4.Department of Plastic Surgery, Lillebaelt HospitalVejle and Odense University HospitalOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations