• Users Online: 395
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 29  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 43-50

An algorithm for the reconstruction of nonfingertip upper extremity soft tissue defects

Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, University of Health Sciences, Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Soysal Bas
Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Halaskargazi Road, Etfal Street, 34371, Sisli
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/tjps.tjps_16_20

Get Permissions

Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of reconstructive methods used in the upper extremity soft tissue defects other than the fingertips, according to location. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 212 patients operated between January 2012 and January 2019 due to upper extremity soft tissue defects excluding the fingertip. Patients were evaluated in terms of age, gender, etiology, reconstruction area, method, and complications. Statistical Analysis Used: The relationship between the reconstructive method or location and the complication was evaluated by one-way analysis of variance test. The relationship between categorical variables was tested by Kruskal–Wallis test. The significance of multiple comparisons was adjusted using Bonferroni correction. Results: The average age of patients was 35.4 ± 19.12 years; 168 were male and 44 were female. 158 patients were operated for trauma, 34 for malignant tumor, 12 for infection, and 8 for extravasation. Complications were observed in 19 of the 220 reconstructive procedures (8.6%): two of the local flaps, three distant flaps, two regional flaps, five perforator flaps, and seven free flaps. 26% of these complications were seen in fingers, 15% in hands, 42% in wrists, 5.2% in forearms, 5.2% in elbows, and 5.5% in arms. Conclusions: There are many procedures for upper extremity reconstruction that can be selected according to defect location and character. It should be kept in mind that complex reconstructions that are preferred especially in complicated injuries may end up with challenging complications. In these types of complicated injuries, it would be better to prefer a reconstructive ladder instead of a reconstructive elevator.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded242    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal