Effects of pedicled flap combined with membrane induction technique in repairing foot and ankle wounds in diabetic patients

Guo Xiaofeng; Deng Xinxin; Huang Zhihu; Xue Mingyu; Bu Fanyu

doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20221212-00534

Volume 39 Issue 4

Apr. 2023

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Abstract

References

Article Navigation > CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS > 2023 > 39(4): 325-329

Guo XF,Deng XX,Huang ZH,et al.Effects of pedicled flap combined with membrane induction technique in repairing foot and ankle wounds in diabetic patients[J].Chin J Burns Wounds,2023,39(4):325-329.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20221212-00534.

Citation:

PDF( 4965 KB)

Effects of pedicled flap combined with membrane induction technique in repairing foot and ankle wounds in diabetic patients

doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20221212-00534

Department of Wound Repair, Wuxi Ninth People's Hospital, Wuxi 214000, China

Funds:

Scientific and Technological Achievements and Suitable Technology Promotion Project of Wuxi Municipal Health Commission T2020122

Taihu Lake Talent Plan Project of Wuxi Municipal Government 2020WXTH-14

More Information

Corresponding author: Bu Fanyu, Email: bufanyu1020@163.com
Received Date: 2022-12-12

Abstract

Abstract

Objective To explore the effects of pedicled flap combined with membrane induction technique in repairing foot and ankle wounds in diabetic patients. Methods A retrospective observational study was conducted. From March 2019 to July 2021, 12 patients with diabetic foot and ankle wounds who met the inclusion criteria were admitted to Wuxi Ninth People's Hospital, including 7 males and 5 females, aged 20 to 92 years. The wound area before debridement was 4.0 cm×2.5 cm to 16.0 cm×12.5 cm. The patients underwent debridement+antibiotic cement tamponade in stage Ⅰ; according to the wound site, peroneal artery perforator flap or posterior tibial artery perforator flap was chosen to repair the wound in stage Ⅱ, with the area of the resected flap ranging from 4.5 cm×3.0 cm to 18.5 cm×14.0 cm. The donor site was directly closed in 4 patients or covered by full-thickness inguinal skin graft in 8 patients. After the operation of stage Ⅱ, the survival of flap and skin graft, the scar in donor and recipient sites of flap, the appearance of flap, and the function of ankle joint of affected extremity were followed up. The recovery of foot and ankle function was evaluated and rated by the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Scoring System at the last follow-up. Results During the follow-up of 4 to 15 months after the operation of stage Ⅱ, both the flap and skin graft survived, without obvious infection recurrence. Linear scars were left in donor and recipient sites of flap, with good appearance in flap. The function of ankle joint in the affected extremity was nearly normal. At the last follow-up, the AOFAS scores of patients were 79 to 93, with excellent in 8 cases and good in 4 cases. Conclusions The pedicled flap combined with membrane induction technique for repairing foot and ankle wounds in diabetic patients has the advantage of simple operation, preserved ankle joint function, and less postoperative infection recurrence, which is worth popularizing in clinical practice.
- Surgical flaps,
- Cementoplasty,
- Diabetic foot,
- Foot injuries,
- Wound repair

FullText(HTML)

References(22)

References

[1]	SinghR, KishoreL, KaurN. Diabetic peripheral neuropathy: current perspective and future directions[J]. Pharmacol Res, 2014,80:21-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2013.12.005.
[2]	FaruqueLI, WiebeN, Ehteshami-AfsharA, et al. Effect of telemedicine on glycated hemoglobin in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials[J]. CMAJ,2017,189(9):E341-E364. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150885.
[3]	中华医学会糖尿病学分会,中华医学会感染病学分会,中华医学会组织修复与再生分会.中国糖尿病足防治指南(2019版)(Ⅴ)[J].中华糖尿病杂志,2019,11(6):387-397. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674‐5809.2019.06.005.
[4]	Pérez-PaneroAJ, Ruiz-MuñozM, Cuesta-VargasAI, et al. Prevention, assessment, diagnosis and management of diabetic foot based on clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2019,98(35):e16877. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000016877.
[5]	段家章,何晓清,徐永清,等.抗生素骨水泥联合螺旋桨皮瓣在修复糖尿病足踝部创面中的应用[J].创伤外科杂志,2017,19(11): 809-813. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-4237.2017.11.003.
[6]	AlamU, AsgharO, AzmiS, et al. General aspects of diabetes mellitus[J]. Handb Clin Neurol,2014,126:211-222. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53480-4.00015-1.
[7]	ZhaoZG, JiLN, ZhengLL, et al. Effectiveness of clinical alternatives to nerve conduction studies for screening for diabetic distal symmetrical polyneuropathy: a multi-center study[J]. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2016, 115: 150-156. DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2016.01.002.
[8]	杨永熙,冯佳雄,黄晓涛,等.糖尿病患者与非糖尿病患者下肢烧伤的治疗结局差异性及机制研究[J/CD].中华损伤与修复杂志:电子版,2016,11(6):428-432. DOI: 10.3877/cm.j.issn.1673-9450.2016.06.006.
[9]	张朝光,戴黎明,杨夏.糖尿病足患者下肢血管病变与细菌感染的关系研究[J].中华医院感染学杂志,2018,28(1):51-54,61.DOI: 10.11816/cn.ni.2018-171343.
[10]	蔡晓斌,兰益南.穿支血管蒂螺旋桨皮瓣修复小腿及足踝慢性溃疡创面[J].中华整形外科杂志,2015,31(3):217-219.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-4598.2015.03.016.
[11]	陈华,舒雅仙,周国云.糖尿病足溃疡病原菌分布及药敏分析[J].中华医院感染学志,2014,24(3):580-581,584.DOI: 10.11816/cn.ni.2014-134009.
[12]	吴英,黄慧萍,张劲丰,等.糖尿病足溃疡程度与病原菌感染的关系[J].中华医院感染学杂志,2014,24(17):4280-4282.DOI: 10.11816/cn.ni.2014-131601.
[13]	SchaperNC, van NettenJJ, ApelqvistJ, et al. Practical Guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease (IWGDF 2019 update)[J]. Diabetes Metab Res Rev, 2020, 36Suppl 1:Se3266. DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.3266.
[14]	LimJZ, NgNS, ThomasC. Prevention and treatment of diabetic foot ulcers[J]. J R Soc Med,2017,110(3): 104-109. DOI: 10.1177/0141076816688346.
[15]	JonesNJ, HardingK. 2015 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot Guidance on the prevention and management of foot problems in diabetes[J]. Int Wound J,2015, 12(4):373-374. DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12475.
[16]	赵晨兵,张会峰.载抗生素骨水泥治疗糖尿病足感染创面的研究进展[J].中华糖尿病杂志,2022,14(7):724-729. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115791-20211213-00660.
[17]	黄平,余晓芳,尤加锐,等.抗生素骨水泥联合延迟外踝上穿支筋膜皮瓣治疗糖尿病足[J].中华显微外科杂志,2022,45(2):128-132.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn.441206-20211201-00284.
[18]	BistolfiA, FerraciniR, AlbaneseC, et al. PMMA-based bone cements and the problem of joint arthroplasty infections: status and new perspectives[J]. Materials (Basel), 2019, 12(23):4002. DOI: 10.3390/ma12234002.
[19]	ZeunP, GoodayC, NunneyI, et al. Predictors of outcomes in diabetic foot osteomyelitis treated initially with conservative (nonsurgical) medical management: a retrospective study[J]. Int J Low Extrem Wounds, 2016,15(1):19-25. DOI: 10.1177/1534734615596892.
[20]	SavvidouOD, KaspirisA, TrikoupisI, et al. Efficacy of antimicrobial coated orthopaedic implants on the prevention of periprosthetic infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Bone Jt Infect, 2020, 5(4):212-222. DOI: 10.7150/jbji.44839.
[21]	HakeME, YoungH, HakDJ, et al. Local antibiotic therapy strategies in orthopaedic trauma: practical tips and tricks and review of the literature[J]. Injury, 2015,46(8):1447-1456.DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.05.008.
[22]	LiuC, YouJX, ChenYX, et al. Effect of induced membrane formation followed by polymethylmethacrylate implantation on diabetic foot ulcer healing when revascularization is not feasible[J]. J Diabetes Res, 2019,2019:2429136. DOI: 10.1155/2019/2429136.