We enjoyed reading the article entitled “A New Technique of ‘Double-A’ Bilateral Flaps Based on Perforators for the Treatment of Sacral Defects,” by Prado et al.1 The double-A bilateral flap is presented as a combination of bilateral perforator fasciocutaneous and myocutaneous flaps. Segmental cutaneous innervation can be preserved, and protective sensibility is likely to be provided. The authors write that the double-A flap is “the ideal solution for neurologically intact patients.” The flap was used successfully to treat large sacral ulcers in 30 patients. A 90 percent follow-up at 1.5 years showed no recurrence. It appears that the authors have come up with a very reliable method for treating large sacral ulcers.
They are to be congratulated for having managed to add a new and reliable surgical procedure to the treatment of large sacral defects. There is no doubt that treatment of nonambulatory as well as ambulatory patients with large sacral defects is a challenge to the reconstructive surgeon. In 1956, Conway and Griffith reported some fundamental principles for the management of pressure sores.2 The flap should have a reliable circulation. Scars should not be placed over the site of the original ulcer, and the scar should not be subjected to repeated trauma. The flap should be made as large as possible, so that if recurrences happen, the same flap can be used again without interference from the scar. We believe that these principles should still be applied. One may add that, whenever possible, protective sensibility should be provided as well.
Double-A bilateral flaps are large flaps with reliable circulation and may provide protective sensibility in the reconstructed area. As mentioned by the authors, one of the drawbacks of this technique is that the scars are positioned over bony prominences, the ischial tuberosities. The ischial tuberosity is a site of predilection for pressure sores. In ambulatory as well as nonambulatory patients, one would be reluctant to place scars in this area. We also agree with the authors that using the double-A flap interferes with future use of gluteal flaps in cases of recurrence.
Even though the double-A flap appears to be a good option for the treatment of large sacral defects, we would like to draw the authors’ attention toward an alternative, the butterfly design.3 This design is based on the use of two lumbar artery perforator flaps placed in the configuration of a butterfly (Fig. 1). The cutaneous nerves emerging together with the perforating arteries can be included in the flap. The butterfly design provides a large volume, may provide protective sensibility in the reconstructed area, and causes minimal donor-site morbidity. These lumbar artery perforator flaps are harvested from the “love handle” areas, no scars are made over the ischial tuberosities, and the gluteal area is still available as a donor site for future reconstructions. Unlike the double-A flap, which is composed of myocutaneous as well as fasciocutaneous flaps, the butterfly design is based solely on perforator flaps. Recent research has indicated that the capacity to heal wounds is similar for myocutaneous and perforator flaps.4
Sven Weum, M.D.
Department of Radiology
Louis de Weerd, M.D.
Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery
University Hospital of North Norway
1. Prado, A., Ocampo, C., Danilla, S., et al. A new technique of “double-A” bilateral flaps based on perforators for the treatment of sacral defects. Plast. Reconstr. Surg.
119: 1481, 2007.
2. Conway, H., and Griffith, B. H. Plastic surgery for closure of decubitus ulcers in patients with paraplegia based on experience with 1,000 cases. Am. J. Surg.
91: 946, 1956.
3. de Weerd, L., and Weum, S. The butterfly design: Coverage of a large sacral defect with two pedicled lumbar artery perforator flaps. Br. J. Plast. Surg.
55: 251, 2002.
4. Guerra, A. B., Gill, P. S., Trahan, C. G., et al. Comparison of bacterial inoculation and transcutaneous oxygen tension in the rabbit S1
perforator and latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flaps. J. Reconstr. Microsurg.
21: 137, 2004.
Letters to the Editor, discussing material recently published in the Journal, are welcome. They will have the best chance of acceptance if they are received within 8 weeks of an article's publication. Letters to the Editor may be published with a response from the authors of the article being discussed. Discussions beyond the initial letter and response will not be published. Letters submitted pertaining to published Discussions of articles will not be printed. Letters to the Editor are not usually peer reviewed, but the Journal may invite replies from the authors of the original publication. All Letters are published at the discretion of the Editor.
Authors will be listed in the order in which they appear in the submission. Letters should be submitted electronically via PRS' enkwell, at www.editorialmanager.com/prs/.
We reserve the right to edit Letters to meet requirements of space and format. Any financial interests relevant to the content of the correspondence must be disclosed. Submission of a Letter constitutes permission for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and its licensees and asignees to publish it in the Journal and in any other form or medium.
The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in the Letters to the Editor represent the personal opinions of the individual writers and not those of the publisher, the Editorial Board, or the sponsors of the Journal. Any stated views, opinions, and conclusions do not reflect the policy of any of the sponsoring organizations or of the institutions with which the writer is affiliated, and the publisher, the Editorial Board, and the sponsoring organizations assume no responsibility for the content of such correspondence.