4.4 Review

Soft-tissue defects of the Achilles tendon region: Management and reconstructive ladder. Review of the literature

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2016.07.053

Keywords

Soft-tissue; Wounds; Defects; Achilles region; Debridement; Management; Reconstructive ladder; Flaps; HBOT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Defects of the Achilles tendon region represent a challenge for reconstructive surgeons. Several options are available but there is still no reconstructive ladder for this specific and tricky area. An up-to-date reconstructive ladder according to local and general conditions is proposed based on our multicentre experience and an extensive review of the English literature on PubMed. Materials and methods: An extensive review of the English literature was performed on PubMed using the following key-words: Achilles region, heel, soft-tissue reconstruction, flaps, grafts and dermal substitutes. Results: A total of 69 complete papers were selected, covering the last thirty years' literature. Although most of the studies were based on limited case-series, local and general conditions were always reported. A comprehensive reconstructive ladder of all the available reconstructive techniques for the Achilles region has been created based on our personal multicentre experience and the results of the literature review. Conclusions: The reconstructive ladder is a concept that is still a mainstay in plastic surgery and guides decisions in the repair strategy for soft tissue defects. The optimal solution, according to the experience of the surgeon and the wishes of the patient, is the one that implies less sacrifice of the donor site. Perforator flaps should be the first-line option for small-to-moderate defects; the distally-based sural flap is the most reported for moderate-to-large defects of the Achilles region, and free flaps should be reserved mainly for complex and wide reconstructions. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available