Comparison of two types of adjacent perforator flap in reconstruction of small and medium-sized defect of ulnar palm
10.3760/cma.j.cn441206-20250510-00106
- VernacularTitle:两种邻近穿支皮瓣修复手掌尺侧中小面积创面的比较
- Author:
Hui WANG
1
;
Xi FAN
;
Bin WANG
;
Haoyu QIN
;
Wanxi ZHANG
;
Xiaoxi YANG
Author Information
1. 唐山市第二医院手外科，唐山 063000
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Proper palmar digital artery;
Dorsal metacarpal artery;
Surgical flap;
Palm injury;
Microsurgical technique
- From:
Chinese Journal of Microsurgery
2025;48(5):517-522
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare clinical effectiveness of the ulnar flap of dorsal cutaneous branch of proper palmar digital artery (PPDA) of little finger and the perforator flap of the 4th dorsal metacarpal artery (DMA) for reconstruction of small and medium-sized defects of ulnar palm.Methods:A retrospective case-control study method was employed in this study. From March 2017 to February 2024, a total of 42 patients of small and medium-sized defects of ulnar palm were treated in the Department of Hand Surgery, the Second Hospital of Tangshan. Twenty-four defects were reconstructed by the ulnar flaps of dorsal cutaneous branch of PPDA (PPDA group) of little finger and the rest of 18 defects were reconstructed by the perforator flap of the 4th DMA (DMA group). Sizes of the defects and flaps in PPDA group were 1.5 cm×1.2 cm-5.2 cm×2.3 cm and 1.6 cm×1.3 cm-6.0 cm×2.5 cm, respectively. Dimensions of the defects and flaps in DMA group ranged from 1.7 cm×1.2 cm-5.0 cm×2.4 cm and 2.0 cm×1.5 cm-6.2 cm×2.7 cm, respectively. Donor sites in both groups were all directly closed. Survival of the flaps and wound healing of donor sites were observed between the 2 groups after surgery. And the surgical time, intraoperative blood loss and duration of follow-up of the 2 groups were recorded. Postoperative follow-up included outpatient clinic visits, telephone interviews and WeChat video-clips. Static two-point discrimination (TPD) of the flaps were measured, and appearance of flaps and donor sites were evaluated based on the Michigan Hand Function Questionnaire (MHQ) evaluation criteria and Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), respectively. The measurement and count data acquired from both groups were compared by independent sample t-test and χ2 tests or Fisher's exact test, respectively. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results:All 24 flaps in PPDA group and 14 flaps in DMA group survived primarily, except 4 flaps in DMA group that had blisters and healed by dressing changes. Primary survival rate of the flaps in PPDA group (100%) was higher than that of DMA group (78%), and the difference was statistically significant ( P<0.05). Donor site incisions in both groups all healed primarily. The surgery time, intraoperative blood loss and duration of follow-up in PPDA and DMA groups were 64.50 min±7.70 min, 87.08 ml±25.11 ml, 15.46 months±3.83 months, and 62.44 min±8.28 min, 91.67 ml±27.28 ml, 16.39 months±3.24 months, respectively, and of which there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups ( P>0.05). At the final follow-up, static TPD and MHQ scores for flap appearance in PPDA group were 13.71 mm±2.91 mm and 4.63±0.50, which were better than 15.78 mm±2.78 mm and 4.28±0.46 in DMA group with a statistically significant difference ( P<0.05). VSS scores of donor site appearance in PPDA and DMA groups were (3.38±0.97 and 3.89±1.02, respectively. Although there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups ( P>0.05), the donor sites in PPDA group were more concealed and easier accepted by patients. Conclusion:The ulnar flap of dorsal cutaneous branch of PPDA of little finger and the perforator flap of the 4th DMA are both suitable for reconstruction of small and medium-sized defects of ulnar palm. Compared with the perforator flap of the 4th DMA, the ulnar flap of dorsal cutaneous branch of PPDA of little finger has advantages in higher primary survival rate, better flap sensation and appearance with more concealed donor site.
