Are Perforators Reliable as Recipient Arteries in Lower Extremity Reconstruction? Analysis of 423 Free Perforator Flaps

Abstract

Background: Perforator flaps have revolutionized lower limb reconstruction by offering single-stage thin, pliable coverage with an excellent aesthetic match. Although anastomosis of the flap to a major artery remains the gold standard, perforator-to-perforator anastomosis has several advantages, including expedient recipient dissection and increased recipient options in vessel-depleted extremities. The aim of this study was to compare flap survival when a perforator or major artery was used as a recipient vessel.

Methods: A retrospective cohort of free perforator flaps for lower limb reconstruction was reviewed. Demographics, comorbidities, vascular status, defect characteristics, operative details, and complications were recorded. Outcomes for perforator and major artery recipients were compared.

Results: Four hundred twenty-three flaps were performed for various reasons using perforator flaps. The total limb salvage rate was 98.8 percent. Total and partial flap failure rates were 6.1 percent and 9.0 percent, respectively. Comparing perforator recipients [n = 109 (25.8 percent)] to major artery recipients [n = 314 (74.2 percent)], there was no significant difference in total (p = 0.746) or partial flap failure (p = 0.212). Significant factors between the groups included larger flap size with major artery recipients (p = 0.001) and shorter operative time when using a perforator recipient (p = 0.012).

Conclusions: Perforator-to-perforator anastomosis is a reliable option that affords equivalent rates of flap success compared to major artery anastomosis in lower extremity reconstruction. The authors advocate using a major artery recipient in defects where the axial vessels are easily accessible. A perforator recipient is a viable alternative in defects where access to the axial vessels is inconvenient and in patients with limited recipient options.