Sir:
We read with great interest the article entitled “The Split Pectoralis Flap: Combining the Benefits of Pectoralis Major Advancement and Turnover Techniques in One Flap” by Brown et al.1 We agree that the treatment of sternal wounds is a challenge for the plastic surgeon. In addition, these patients have many comorbidities and need well-vascularized tissue to cover the loss of substance.
From January of 2003 to date, we have solved 57 cases of poststernotomy mediastinitis. Since 2012, we have used negative-pressure wound therapy on surgical wounds before and after coverage with advancement flaps with pectoral muscles. In our department, we implement a three-step protocol: débridement, negative-pressure wound therapy, and coverage with pectoralis major advancement flaps.
We disagree with the statement that the advancement of the pectoralis major offers coverage of only the upper two-thirds of the sternum region. The authors use a split pectoralis flap to cover the lower third of the sternum. We find it very interesting, but in our experience, through the advancement of the chest muscles, we have always been able to offer good coverage of the distal portions of the sternum. In fact, when we need greater coverage in the distal third of the chest, we resort to an approximation of the flaps where one flap is positioned more caudally and one more cranially. If necessary, we have recourse to the humeral insertion detachment of the pectoralis major muscle. The pectoralis major advancement flap is also used in chest malformations such as in the treatment of pectus excavatum. Although today these techniques are used less often, we just want to highlight how the filling of dead spaces has not been a problem in using these techniques even in specific situations.2 In addition, we have always achieved good filling of dead spaces, especially through the use of negative-pressure wound therapy, which offers an easy-to-use solution. In fact, by applying negative-pressure wound therapy for 7 to 10 days, we are able to realize several advantages related to its use3 (e.g., increase in microcirculation, reduction of bacterial charge, and better wound bed preparation).
In our series, dehiscence of the surgical wound was the main cause of reoperation. This resulted in an increase of biological risks for the patient and hospitalization costs. In selected cases, we apply the negative-pressure wound therapy to −80 mmHg for 7 to 10 days to prevent surgical dehiscence (as we apply in other locations).4
The use of negative-pressure wound therapy has allowed us to reduce the rate of dehiscence of wounds. We would like to ask the authors whether they have considered the use of this resource. We would like to know whether, through the technique proposed, they had problems with closing the superficial planes for the bulky effect because of the turnover of the flap (as indicated by their images).
DISCLOSURE
The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication.
Francesco Ciancio, M.D.
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
University of Bari
Bari, Italy
Alessandro Innocenti, M.D.
Plastic and Reconstructive Microsurgery
Careggi Universital Hospital
Florence, Italy
Aurelio Portincasa, M.D.
Domenico Parisi, M.D.
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
University of Foggia
Foggia, Italy
REFERENCES
1. 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.
2. Innocenti A, Ciancio F, Melita D, et al. Periareolar access for pectus excavatum correction with silicone implants: A new method to minimize postoperative scars? Review of the literature, considerations and statistical analysis of clinical outcomes. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2017;41:878886.
3. Anghel EL, Kim PJ. Negative-pressure wound therapy: A comprehensive review of the evidence. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(Suppl):129S137S.
4. Ciancio F, Parisi D, Portincasa A, Innocenti A. Discussion: A new method of salvaging breast reconstruction after breast implant using negative-pressure wound therapy and instillation. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2017;41:466467.
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.
