Share this article on:

Abstract 30: A Novel Experimental Rat Skin Flap Model that Distinguish between Venous Congestion and Arterial Ischemia The Reverse U-Shaped Bipedicled Superficial Inferior Epigastric Artery Flap

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – Global Open: April 2016 - Volume 4 - Issue 4S - p 49
doi: 10.1097/01.GOX.0000488962.93021.87
PRS PSRC Podium Proofs 2016

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.

Noriko M. Matsumoto, MD,* Masayo Aoki, MD, PhD,* Junichi Nakao, MD,* Hiroki Umezawa, MD, PhD,* Satoshi Akaishi, MD, PhD,* Yoshihiro Takami, MD, PhD,† Wei-Xia Peng, MD, PhD,‡ Ryuji Ohashi, MD, PhD,‡ Zenya Naito, MD, PhD,‡ Rei Ogawa, MD, PhD*

From the *Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Nippon Medical School, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan; †Tokyo Rosai Hospital, Ota-ku, Tokyo, Japan; and ‡Department of Integrated Diagnostic Pathology, Graduate School of Medicine, Nippon Medical School Hospital, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.

PURPOSE: A rat skin flap model has been used in numerous studies with evaluation of the flap survival rate. Flap necrosis is caused by mixed arterial and venous insufficiency. However, there is no flap model that can clearly distinguish between ischemia and congestion.

METHODS: We created a new rat skin flap model to distinguish between venous congestion and arterial ischemia. Rats were divided into 3 groups: control (n = 3), ischemia (n = 10), and congestion (n = 10). A reverse U-shaped bipedicled superficial epigastric artery flap was elevated. On the opposite side to the pedicle, the artery was ligated as an ischemia model (A-V+), and vein was ligated as a congestion model (A+V−). The flap was returned to the original site and sutured. Surrounding neovascularization was blocked by polyurethane film. The flap survival rate was evaluated on the third postoperative day, and statistical analysis (1-way analysis of variance) was performed.

RESULTS: The mean flap survival rate was 100%, 61.8% (56.9–67.1%), and 42.3% (35.7%–48.7%) in the control, ischemia, and congestion groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Our results demonstrated that the present flap could significantly distinguish between ischemia and congestion.

CONCLUSIONS: This flap model is simple and has a consistent flap survival rate. We believe that this flap model can be used to assess the benefits of various pharmacological agents on the survival pattern of skin flaps.

© 2016 American Society of Plastic Surgeons