Reconstruction of soft tissue defect around knee with thoracodorsal artery perforator flap and muscle‐sparing latissimus dorsi flap

Abstract Introduction Around the knee reconstruction is challenging for reconstructive surgeons. Several methods have been proposed, including perforator and muscle flaps; however, all have advantages and disadvantages. As the success rate of free‐flap surgery increases, reconstruction around the knee using this method is becoming increasingly popular. Nevertheless, there are no large‐scale case reports in the previous literature using either a thoracodorsal artery perforator flap (latissimus dorsi (LD) perforator flap) or a muscle‐sparing latissimus dorsi (msLD) flap for reconstruction around the knee. In this retrospective report, we describe our clinical experiences and present an algorithm regarding recipient vessel choice in free‐flap reconstructive surgery of around the knee defects. Patient and Methods Fifty‐six cases in which a flap from the lateral thoracic area was used to reconstruct an around the knee defect between January 2016 and March 2022 were reviewed. The patients were aged 18–87 years (mean, 52.13 years), and of the 56 patients, 36 were male and 20 were female. Injuries were caused by trauma, contracture, rheumatoid vasculitis, tumor, infection, burns, sunken deformity, and pressure sores. The 56 cases included 22 with a defect including the knee, 14 with a defect below the knee (7 of the primary below‐knee amputation [BKA] and 7 of the secondary BKA), 9 involving the distal medial thigh, 8 involving the distal lateral thigh, 2 involving the popliteal area, and 1 involving the middle thigh. Most cases were reconstructed using a single LD perforator flap or msLD flap. Chimeric or supplementary flaps were used when extensive coverage or dead space obliteration was required. The average size of the defect area was 253.6 cm 2 (range: 5 × 6–21 × 39 cm 2 ). Results In the cases, the recipient artery used included the following: descending genicular artery (23), superficial femoral artery (14), descending branch of the lateral circumflex femoral artery (14), anterior tibial artery (2), popliteal artery (2), and posterior tibial artery (1). The recipient vein included the greater saphenous vein (24), descending branch of the lateral circumflex femoral vein (14), superficial femoral vein (7), descending genicular vein (6), anterior tibial vein (2), popliteal vein (2), and posterior tibial vein (1). The average flap size was 281.8 cm 2 (range: 4 × 8–35 × 19 cm 2 ). All flaps survived; however, seven complications occurred, including 2 partial flap losses, 1 arterial insufficiency, 1 hematoma, 1 minor dehiscence, 1 donor‐site graft loss, and 1 short BKA. Normal knee range of motion (121–140°) was observed in 34 patients and 16 showed varying degrees of limited range of motion. Motion was not observed in four patients who underwent knee fusion and could not be evaluated in two patients who underwent above‐knee amputation. The mean follow‐up duration was 24.6 months (range: 4–72 months). Conclusion The LD perforator flap is ideal for the reconstruction of around the knee defects because it enables a long pedicle, large flap, and chimeric design. The msLD flap is ideal because it enables strong stump support, dead‐space obliteration, and infection control. Moreover, since the two flaps are distant from the knee, this method is advantageous in terms of postoperative rehabilitation and there is minimal donor‐site morbidity due to the thin nature of the LD muscle. In addition, the flap can be elevated in three positions and the operation can be completed without positional changes in various recipient vessel locations. Based on our experience, we conclude that the LD flap has the potential to be used as widely as or in preference to the anterolateral thigh flap in the reconstruction of around the knee defects.