Sir:
We commend Ciancio et al. for presentation of their series of successful sternal wound closure. The authors present an interesting discussion of their experience, including wound preparation and alternative methods for coverage using pectoralis major flaps.
Similar to the authors, we agree with the initial treatment of sternal wounds with surgical débridement and negative-pressure therapy, allowing bacteria reduction, increased microcirculation, and wound bed preparation.1 As described, patients are initially treated by meticulous débridement, which often requires removal of necrotic tissue and sternal bone.2 We often use negative-pressure therapy after initial débridement and before definitive closure. However, in some cases, purulent mediastinitis requires daily monitoring and mechanical débridement. Evaluation of wounds is limited by negative-pressure therapy, as dressing changes occur less frequently and lack transparency to allow wound monitoring. Therefore, we do not rely on negative-pressure therapy alone before definitive closure.
We find the cranial and caudal approximation of flaps an interesting solution to the coverage of the distal sternum and xiphoid area. This solution delivers well-vascularized tissue to allow for coverage of the wound, which may require complete release of the pectoralis major muscle.3 Our technique allows coverage of the lower xiphoid and filling of mediastinal dead space resulting from débridement of necrotic tissue and bone, especially in obese patients. Furthermore, the cosmetic appearance and the function of the pectoralis major are maintained, by leaving the superior portion of the pectoralis attached to the humeral head.
We have found closure of the superficial planes to be challenging, especially in the xiphoid area in all sternal closures, as undermining laterally of fasciocutaneous flaps at the xiphoid does not yield significant advancement and can result in skin necrosis in this watershed area. However, we have not had difficulty of skin closure over the pectoralis turnover flap, as the area where the turnover contains its greatest bulk is between the nipple and inframammary fold where skin laxity is available.2 Similarly, elevating and undermining a fasciocutaneous flap for women with macromastia presents a challenge in disruption to the blood supply to the breast and can cause medial skin necrosis.
Our experiences have demonstrated that the benefit of well-vascularized tissue coverage of mediastinal dead space without the morbidity of an omentum flap outweighs the initial superficial bulky appearance, which decreases with time. Lastly, we have used negative pressure over the incisional closure of pectoralis flaps to reduce final closure tension with excellent results.
DISCLOSURE
The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication.
Valerie DeGregorio, M.S., P.A.-C.
Shayan Izaddoost, M.D., Ph.D.
Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Baylor College of Medicine
Houston, Texas
REFERENCES
1. Song DH, Wu LC, Lohman RF, Gottlieb LJ, Franczyk M. Vacuum assisted closure for the treatment of sternal wounds: The bridge between débridement and definitive closure. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111:9297.
2. Brown RH, Sharabi SE, Kania KE, Hollier LH Jr, Izaddoost SA. The split pectoralis flap: Combining the benefits of pectoralis major advancement and turnover techniques in one flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:14741477.
3. Ciancio F, Innocenti A, Portincasa A, Parisi D. The split pectoralis flap: Combining the benefits of pectoralis major advancement and turnover techniques in one flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:193e.
GUIDELINES
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.
Letters submitted should pose a specific question that clarifies a point that either was not made in the article or was unclear, and therefore a response from the corresponding author of the article is requested.
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.
The Journal requests that individuals submit no more than five (5) letters to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in a calendar year.
