Durability of Prefabricated versus Normal Random Flaps Against a Bacterial Challenge

Abstract

 

Numerous reports of flap prefabrication have demonstrated good survival. The durability of these flaps compared with that of other flap types or normal tissue, however, remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine how prefabricated flaps respond to a bacterial challenge compared with identically sized normal random-pattern flaps. Rat abdominal cutaneous-panniculus carnosus flaps were prefabricated with a standard-sized groin fasciovascular tissue carrier and then inoculated with Staphylococcus aureus. The prefabricated flaps were divided into two groups. Group one (standard prefabricated flap, n = 24) received no growth factor. Group two (n = 24) received an angiogenic growth factor between the carrier and flap tissue. A random-pattern flap served as a nonprefabricated control (n = 12). Grading of the prefabricated flaps with growth factor versus the standard prefabricated flaps versus controls showed dehiscence (41 versus 37 versus 4 percent), ulceration (21 versus 29 versus 18 percent), erythema/cellulitis (40 versus 44 versus 8 percent), and necrosis (9 versus 29 versus 0 percent). The control flaps had significantly less dehiscence, erythema/cellulitis, and necrosis than the standard prefabricated flaps. Similarly, the prefabricated flaps with angiogenic growth factor had significantly less necrosis than the standard prefabricated flaps.

Conclusions: (1) prefabricated flaps were demonstrated to be less durable than random-pattern flaps against a bacterial challenge, (2) angiogenic growth factor may help to improve the durability of prefabricated flaps against bacterial infection, and (3) the biologic behavior of prefabricated flaps is not the same as that of normal tissue and deserves further investigation.