Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Perforatorbasierte Keystone-Lappenplastik in der Rekonstruktion ausgedehnter Gewebedefekte nach lumbosakraler Spondylodese

Perforator-based keystone flap in the reconstruction of extensive tissue defects after lumbosacral spondylodesis

  • Originalien
  • Published:
Die Unfallchirurgie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Prolongierte Wundheilungsstörungen nach dorsalen Spondylodesen können zur Ausbildung von Gewebedefekten mit Exposition des Implantats führen und das klinische Outcome beeinträchtigen.

Ziel der Arbeit

Diese Arbeit zielt darauf ab, die Anwendung der Keystone-Perforator-Lappenplastik in der Rekonstruktion von lumbosakralen Gewebedefekten vorzustellen.

Material und Methoden

In die retrospektive Studie wurden 11 konsekutive Patienten mit einer über 2 Wochen persistierenden Wunddehiszenz von über 6 × 6 cm Defektfläche nach dorsalen Spondylodesen eingeschlossen. Zur plastischen Rekonstruktion kam die Keystone-Perforator-Lappenplastik zum Einsatz, deren arterielle Blutversorgung auf intra- und intermuskulär perforierenden Ästen der Rr. dorsales der Aa. lumbales basierte.

Ergebnisse

Das mediane Alter der Patienten betrug 58 Jahre (54,7 ± 8,3). Der durchschnittliche Body-Mass-Index (BMI) und Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) waren 29,9 bzw. 3,4. In 8 Fällen wurde eine lumbosakrale, sonst eine lumbale Fusion durchgeführt. Im Rahmen von Wundrevisionen wurden bei den Patienten durchschnittlich 4 Anwendungen von Vakuum-Saug-Systemen bei einer medianen Defektausdehnung von 7,5 cm in der Breite und 16,5 cm in der Länge eingesetzt. Die mikrobiologische Analyse der intraoperativ gewonnenen Gewebeproben nach wiederholten Vakuumbehandlungen erbrachte in allen Fällen einen positiven Keimnachweis. Die Dauer der stationären Behandlung nach einer Lappenplastik betrug im Durchschnitt 15 Tage und war signifikant kürzer als die Dauer des Managements der offenen Defektwunden (15,5 ± 2,5 vs. 37 ± 16,5, p < 0,05).

Diskussion

Die Keystone-Perforator-Lappenplastik bietet eine suffiziente und revisionsstabile Defektabdeckung im Zuge der Infektsanierung nach dorsaler Spondylodese.

Abstract

Background

Prolonged surgical site infections after spinal fusion surgery may lead to exposure of the implant due to the formation of extensive tissue defects and endanger the clinical outcome.

Objective

This study aims to enlighten the role of the keystone perforator flap method in the reconstruction of lumbar soft tissue defects.

Material and methods

The retrospective study included 11 consecutive patients with a wound dehiscence of over 6 × 6 cm defect area persisting for 2 weeks after spinal fusion. The keystone perforator flap was applied for the reconstruction of tissue defects, whereas the arterial blood supply of the flaps was based on the intramuscular and intermuscular perforating branches of the dorsal branches of the lumbar arteries.

Results

The median age of our cohort was 58 years. The median body mass index (BMI) and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) were 29.9 and 3.4, respectively. In eight cases a lumbosacral was carried out whereas in the remaining series a lumbar fusion was performed. In the course of the subsequent wound revision, on average 4 applications of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) were performed. The average defect size was 7.5 cm in width and 16.5 cm in length. The microbiological analysis of the tissue samples obtained intraoperatively after repeated NPWT revealed positive evidence of pathogenic bacteria in all cases. The average duration of inpatient treatment after flap surgery was 15 days, which was significantly shorter than the NPWT management of the open defect wounds (15.5 ± 2.5 vs. 37 ± 16.5, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The keystone perforator flap offers a stable coverage for soft tissue defects and supports infection control after spinal fusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5

Literatur

  1. Chahoud J, Kanafani Z, Kanj SS (2014) Surgical site infections following spine surgery: eliminating the controversies in the diagnosis. Front Med (Lausanne) 1:7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fang XT, Wood KB (2013) Management of postoperative instrumented spinal wound infection. Chin Med J (Engl) 126:3817–3821

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Sansur CA et al (2011) Rates of infection after spine surgery based on 108,419 procedures: a report from the Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Committee. Spine 36:556–563

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Maruo K, Berven SH (2014) Outcome and treatment of postoperative spine surgical site infections: predictors of treatment success and failure. J Orthop Sci 19:398–404

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kasliwal MK, Tan LA, Traynelis VC (2013) Infection with spinal instrumentation: review of pathogenesis, diagnosis, prevention, and management. Surg Neurol Int 4:392–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Di Martino A, Papalia R, Albo E, Diaz L, Denaro L, Denaro V (2019) Infection after spinal surgery and procedures. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 23(2):173–178. https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_201904_17487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen SH, Chen WJ, Wu MH, Liao JC, Fu CJ (2018) Postoperative infection in patients undergoing posterior lumbosacral spinal surgery: a pictorial guide for diagnosis and early treatment. Clin Spine Surg 31(6):225–238. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000633

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Parpaley Y, Urbach H, Kovacs A, Klehr M, Kristof RA (2011) Pseudohypoxic brain swelling (postoperative intracranial hypotension-associated venous congestion) after spinal surgery: report of 2 cases. Neurosurgery 68(1):E277–E283. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e3181fead14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Behan FC (2003) The Keystone Design Perforator Island Flap in reconstructive surgery. ANZ J Surg 73(3):112–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Behan F, Sizeland A, Porcedu S, Somia N, Wilson J (2006) Keystone island flap: an alternative reconstructive option to free flaps in irradiated tissue. ANZ J Surg 76(5):407–413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kiil BJ, Rozen WM, Pan WR et al (2009) The lumbar artery perforators: a cadaveric and clinical anatomical study. Plast Reconstr Surg 123:1229–1238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bissell MB, Greenspun DT, Levine J et al (2016) The lumbar artery perforator flap: 3‑dimensional anatomical study and clinical applications. Ann Plast Surg 77(4):469–476

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mujtaba B, Hanafy AK, Largo RD et al (2019) The lumbar artery perforator flap: clinical review and guidance on image reporting. Clin Radiol 74(10):756–762

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Haddock NT, Dumestre D, Teotia SS (2020) Lumbar artery perforator flap: video surgical sequence. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 8(4):e2680

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Beiner JM, Grauer J, Kwon BK et al (2003) Postoperative wound infections of the spine. Neurosurg Focus 15:E14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Glassman SD, Dimar JR, Puno RM et al (1996) Salvage of instrumental lumbar fusions complicated by surgical wound infection. Spine 21:2163–2169

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Behr B, Hirsch T, Goertz O, Ring A, Lehnhardt M, Daigeler A (2014) Therapeutic options for reconstruction of the dorsal trunk wall. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 46(2):90–96

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kolbenschlag J, Goertz O, Lehnhardt M, Behr B, Ring A, Daigeler A (2015) Plastisch-chirurgische Möglichkeiten der Thoraxwandrekonstruktion. Zentralbl Chir 140(2):179–185

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Harati K, Kolbenschlag J, Behr B et al (2015) Thoracic wall reconstruction after tumor resection. Front Oncol 5:247

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Prinz V, Vajkoczy P (2020) Surgical revision strategies for postoperative spinal implant infections (PSII). J Spine Surg 6(4):777–784

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Lall RR, Wong AP, Lall RR, Lawton CD, Smith ZA, Dahdaleh NS (2015) Evidence-based management of deep wound infection after spinal instrumentation. J Clin Neurosci 22(2):238–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrej Ring.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

A. Ring, H. Beutel, S.U. Bushart, N.-C. Dellmann und K. Gousias geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Diese retrospektive Studie erfolgte nach Konsultation der zuständigen Ethikkommission und im Einklang mit nationalem Recht.

Additional information

Redaktion

Wolf Mutschler, München

Hans Polzer, München

Ben Ockert, München

figure qr

QR-Code scannen & Beitrag online lesen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ring, A., Beutel, H., Bushart, S.U. et al. Perforatorbasierte Keystone-Lappenplastik in der Rekonstruktion ausgedehnter Gewebedefekte nach lumbosakraler Spondylodese. Unfallchirurgie 125, 975–982 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-021-01128-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-021-01128-x

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation