ADVERTISEMENT
How Safe Is Reverse Sural Flap? A Systematic Review
Abstract
Background: Soft tissue reconstruction of the lower third of the leg, the ankle, and the foot is challenging for reconstructive surgeons. The options for reconstruction are limited. Reverse sural flap is relatively easy to perform and considered a good option for reconstruction. The complication rates are variable in studies. This study aims to systemically review all available articles based on reverse sural flap focusing on complications of the flap. The overall complication of the flap helps to better understand the reliability of the flap.
Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar to identify cases of reverse sural artery flap.
Results: A pooled analysis of 89 articles was performed, which yielded 2575 patients (2592 flaps) over a period of 19 years. Most of the cases were performed in Asian countries (1540 flaps, 59.4%) with the majority being performed in China (746 flaps, 28.8%). The most common cause for reverse sural flap surgery was trauma/postsurgical (1785/2592) followed by burn/scarring. Flap complications were recorded in 653 of 2592 flaps (25.20%). The most common complication was partial flap loss, which was recorded in 204 flaps (7.85%) followed by venous congestion (79 flaps, 3.05%). Complete flap loss was observed only in 66 participants (2.5% of all the flaps performed).
Conclusions: Reverse sural flap is reliable flap for the reconstruction of lower leg, ankle, and foot. It can give a comparable outcome as free flap when meticulously performed and, in many cases, a better result.
Introduction
Soft tissue reconstruction of the lower third of the leg and the foot is challenging for reconstructive surgeons. The major problem is limited mobility of the skin and poor vascularity. Various methods of reconstruction have been described for reconstruction such as local flap, free flap, perforator flap, etc. The distally based sural fasciocutaneous flap is a good option for the reconstruction of the lower third of the leg and the foot. The major advantage of this flap is that it does not require microsurgical skills and can be done in a minimal-resource center. The first distally based sural fasciocutaneous flap was defined by Donski et al in 1983 for Achilles tendon coverage.1 The detailed anatomy of distally based sural fasciocutaneous flap for the reconstruction of distal third of leg, foot, and ankle defect was described by Masquelet et al in 1992.2 Later, various modifications were illustrated by other studies.3-5
The distally based sural fasciocutaneous flap is the workhorse flap for many reconstructive surgeons, especially when they lack microsurgical skills or when other reconstructive options are not available. Many surgeons believe the sural flap is a good alternative to the free flap. The complication rates are variable in studies. This study aims to systemically review all available articles based on the reverse sural flap, focusing on complications of the flap. Knowing the overall complications of the flap helps us to better understand the reliability of the flap. Furthermore, this study reviews the demographics and etiologies for flap surgery.
Review and Data Extraction
We conducted a comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar using the keywords “sural flap, reverse sural flap, reverse neurocutaneous sural flap, reconstruction of leg and foot.” Additional articles were identified by reviewing reference lists. Various journals were searched for articles not indexed in PubMed or EMBASE. The inclusion criteria for the articles were those which studied reverse sural flap with complications from 2000-01 to 2019-20, had been published, and are in English. Articles were excluded if they failed to present the data for extraction and also if they failed to present the complications.
Data extraction and quality assessment were performed. The data were extracted from each study into an Excel spreadsheet, and further evaluation was performed. Various charts were extracted from the original data. The following variables were collected from each study: country of origin, year of publication, number of flaps, number of patients, gender, indication for reconstruction, number of complications, and type of complications.
Special care was taken to avoid the overlapping of the patient population. For this purpose, a comparison of the authorship, date of publication, and country of origin of the article were performed. If the patient population was found to overlap, the article with most comprehensive data was included in the study. This method resulted in the exclusion of 2 articles.
A formal meta-analysis was not performed due to the large degree of clinical heterogeneity among the study populations.
The database search elicited 784 articles. The process of article selection for systematic review is summarized in Figure 1.
Results
The search revealed 784 titles of interest, of which 89 articles were selected for the final review. All the articles were observational studies, with the majority being retrospective case series. The list of publications included in the review is presented in Table 1. The pooled analysis of 89 articles yielded 2575 patients (2592 flaps) over a period of 19 years (2000-01 to 2019-20).
Demographics
Most of the flap surgeries were performed in Asian countries (1540 flaps, 59.4%), with majority being performed in China (746 flaps, 28.8%). The majority of patients were male (1896 patients, 73.6%). The complication rate in China is much lower than the overall complication rate (Table 2; Figure 2).
Etiology
For the ease of classification and data extraction, the etiology has been classified into 9 groups. The most common cause for reverse sural flap surgery was trauma/postsurgical (1785 of 2592) followed by burn/scarring (Table 3).
Flap Complications
Flap complications were recorded in 653 of 2592 flaps (25.19%). The most common complication was partial flap loss, which was recorded in 204 flaps (7.87%), followed by venous congestion (79 flaps, 3.05%). Complete flap loss was observed only in 66 cases (2.51% of all flaps performed; Table 4).
Discussion
This study analyzed a total of 2592 reverse sural flaps (2575 patients) from 27 regions around the globe. No other studies of reverse sural flaps to date have included so many patients. All of the studies were observational studies, with most being case series.
The distally based sural flap is the workhorse flap for the reconstruction of the lower leg, the ankle, and the foot. Another alternative reconstructive option includes free flap. There is ongoing debate among reconstructive surgeons as to whether the free flap is better than a sural flap. When considering the reconstructive ladder, reverse sural flap, as a locoregional flap, comes earlier as a reconstructive option. The greatest advantage of a sural flap is that it is easy to perform and even non-plastic surgeons can perform the sural flap easily. It is advantageous in resource-poor centers.
This systematic review shows that most reverse sural flaps (59.4%, 1540 of 2592 flaps) were performed in Asian countries. The reason could be the larger population, lack of microsurgeons or microsurgical facilities, or higher incidence of trauma in Asian countries. A systematic review by Dijkink et al shows that 90% of all lethal traumatic injuries occur in middle- and low-income countries.95 This study classified the etiologies into 9 groups. The most common reason for surgery was trauma/post operation. Trauma and post operation were combined into a single group for the ease of date extraction, and in many cases it was difficult to extract these 2 entities separately. This group accounted for 68.86% (1785 flaps). De Blacam et al also reported trauma as most common indication for reverse sural flap surgery.96 Burn/scarring and ulcer were the other most common indication for surgery after trauma/post operation. Burn injury is one of the major causes of trauma in the world, and most cases of burn injury occur in low- and middle-income countries.97 This review shows that most of the procedures were done in a single stage. Single-stage procedures, when successful, are a win-win for both patients and doctors.
The pooled analysis shows the overall complication rate of 25.19% (653 of 2592). Total flap necrosis, the most devastating complication, was observed in only 2.5% of patients. These findings are consistent with those of a systemic review and pooled analysis done by de Blacam et al.96 Their study reported the overall complication rate of 26%, and total flap necrosis was observed in 3.2% of patients. Similarly, a meta-analysis of 50 articles including 720 flaps by Follmar et al reported complete flap necrosis in 3.3% (24 of 720) of patients.98 The findings of the study reported here are also comparable with those of Wei et al from China, with 179 flaps from 175 patients.51 That study recorded an overall complication rate of 21.22% without any complete flap loss. The findings in the study presented here compare favorably with free flap failure rates in lower limb reconstruction ranging from 7.7 to 20%.99-101
The most common complication in our pooled analysis was partial flap loss. The partial flap loss was observed in 7.87% (204) of flaps. This figure is comparable with previous a systematic review done by de Blacam et al with a rate of 6.7%.96 Follmar et al reported in his meta-analysis a slightly higher rate of partial flap necrosis of 11%.98 Similarly, Kang et al in their series of free flap reconstruction of lower limb reported a partial flap loss of 15.4%. The other most common complication was venous congestion 3.05% (79 flaps). Early detection of the flap failure or complication helps the surgeon to rescue flaps. It is always important to train the nursing staff and junior doctors to properly examine the signs of flap failure.
This study has several limitations. All included studies were retrospective in nature, hindering the identification of predictors of flap failure or complications. An analysis of the complications in respect to comorbidity of the patients was not performed because most of the studies fail to present the data systematically. Most of the studies included were case series, and pooled analysis of the data presents a result with a low level of evidence. There was considerable heterogeneity between the studies, which limited the comparison of some findings. Although a thorough search of literature on PubMed, EMBASE and Google scholar was conducted as well as a review of related and cross-referenced literature, existence of missing studies can never be excluded.
This systematic review and pooled analysis of reverse sural flaps, which includes the largest number of patients to date, will aid reconstructive surgeons in decision-making regarding the reconstruction of the lower leg, the foot, and the ankle.
Conclusions
Reverse sural flap is a reliable flap for the reconstruction of the lower leg, the ankle, and the foot. It provides an outcome comparable to that of the free flap when meticulously performed and, in many cases, a better result. The reverse sural flap will continue to evolve with various refinements to meet the reconstructive needs of the individual patients.
Acknowledgments
We would like to extend our sincere gratitude and appreciation to Ms.Sabita Kumari Chhetry for helping us with the data arrangement and statistics.
Affiliations: Nepal Plastic Cosmetic and Laser Center, Lalitpur, Nepal
Corresponding author: Sanjib Tripathee, MD; sanjibatny@gmail.com
Ethics: This study conforms to the Declaration of Helsinki ethical principles for medical research. The study is based on de-identified information and is exempt from IRB.
Disclosures: The authors have no relevant financial or nonfinancial interests to disclose.
References
1. Donski PK, Fogdestam I. Distally based fasciocutaneous flap from the sural region. A preliminary report. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1983;17(3):191-196. doi:10.3109/02844318309013118
2. Masquelet AC, Romana MC, Wolf G. Skin island flaps supplied by the vascular axis of the sensitive superficial nerves: anatomic study and clinical experience in the leg. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992;89(6):1115-1121. doi:10.1097/00006534-199206000-00018
3. Chang SM. The pedicle of neurocutaneous island flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;98(2):374-376. doi:10.1097/00006534-199608000-00036
4. Hasegawa M, Torii S, Katoh H, Esaki S. The distally based superficial sural artery flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1994;93(5):1012-1020. doi:10.1097/00006534-199404001-00016
5. Nakajima H, Imanishi N, Fukuzumi S, et al. Accompanying arteries of the lesser saphenous vein and sural nerve: anatomic study and its clinical applications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;103(1):104-120. doi:10.1097/00006534-199901000-00018
6. Almeida MF, da Costa PR, Okawa RY. Reverse-flow island sural flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109(2):583-591. doi:10.1097/00006534-200202000-00027
7. Mak KH. Distally based sural neurocutaneous flaps for ankle and heel ulcers. Hong Kong Med J. 2001;7(3):291-295.
8. Meyer C, Hartmann B, Horas U, Kilian O, Heiss C, Schnettler R. Reconstruction of the lower leg with the sural artery flap. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2002;387(7-8):320-325. doi:10.1007/s00423-002-0317-7
9. Yildirim S, Akan M, Gideroglu K, Aköz T. Distally-based neurofasciocutaneous flaps in electrical burns. Burns. 2002;28(4):379-385. doi:10.1016/s0305-4179(02)00017-7
10. Baumeister SP, Spierer R, Erdmann D, Sweis R, Levin LS, Germann GK. A realistic complication analysis of 70 sural artery flaps in a multimorbid patient group. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112(1):129-142. doi:10.1097/01.PRS.0000066167.68966.66
11. Parodi PC, DeBiasio F, Vaienti L, DeLorenzi F, Riberti C. Distally based sural neuro-fasciocutaneous island flap to cover tissue loss in the distal third of the leg. Eur J Plast Surg. 2003;26(4):175-178.
12. Raveendran SS, Perera D, Happuharachchi T, Yoganathan V. Superficial sural artery flap--a study in 40 cases. Br J Plast Surg. 2004;57(3):266-269.
13. Akhtar S, Hameed A. Versatility of the sural fasciocutaneous flap in the coverage of lower third leg and hind foot defects. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59(8):839-845. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2005.12.009
14. Kalam MA, Faruquee SR, Karmokar SK, Khadka PB. Superficial sural artery island flap for management of exposed Achilles’ tendon - surgical techniques and clinical results. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2005;3(4):401-410.
15. Spyriounis PK. The use of the reverse sural neurovenocutaneous flap in distal tibia, ankle and heel reconstruction. Eur J Plast Surg. 2005;28(5):309-314.
16. Top H, Benlier E, Aygit AC, Kiyak M. Distally based sural flap in treatment of chronic venous ulcers. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;55(2):160-168. doi:10.1097/01.sap.0000168887.25946.54
17. Tosun Z, Ozkan A, Karaçor Z, Savaci N. Delaying the reverse sural flap provides predictable results for complicated wounds in diabetic foot. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;55(2):169-173. doi:10.1097/01.sap.0000170530.51470.1a
18. Zhang FH, Chang SM, Lin SQ, et al. Modified distally based sural neuro-veno-fasciocutaneous flap: anatomical study and clinical applications. Microsurgery. 2005;25(7):543-550. doi:10.1002/micr.20162
19. Buluç L, Tosun B, Sen C, Sarlak AY. A modified technique for transposition of the reverse sural artery flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(7):2488-2492. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000219130.32053.29
20. Chen SL, Chen TM, Wang HJ. The distally based sural fasciomusculocutaneous flap for foot reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59(8):846-855. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2005.10.013
21. El-Shazly M, Yassin O. Increasing the success rate of the reversed-flow fasciocutaneous island sural flap: a clinical experience in 26 cases. Ann Plast Surg. 2006;57(6):653-657. doi:10.1097/01.sap.0000235475.74372.67
22. Foran MP, Schreiber J, Christy MR, Goldberg NH, Silverman RP. The modified reverse sural artery flap lower extremity reconstruction. J Trauma. 2008;64(1):139-143. doi:10.1097/01.ta.0000240981.24052.e9
23. Morgan K, Brantigan CO, Field CJ, Paden M. Reverse sural artery flap for the reconstruction of chronic lower extremity wounds in high-risk patients. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2006;45(6):417-423. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2006.09.016
24. Noack N, Hartmann B, Küntscher MV. Measures to prevent complications of distally based neurovascular sural flaps. Ann Plast Surg. 2006;57(1):37-40. doi:10.1097/01.sap.0000208946.40714.07
25. Ríos-Luna A, Villanueva-Martínez M, Fahandezh-Saddi H, Villanueva-Lopez F, del Cerro-Gutiérrez M. Versatility of the sural fasciocutaneous flap in coverage defects of the lower limb. Injury. 2007;38(7):824-831. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2006.07.007
26. Savk O, Savk E. Reverse sural artery flap for distal lower extremity defects. J Dermatol. 2006;33(10):700-704. doi:10.1111/j.1346-8138.2006.00162.x
27. Xu G, Lai-Jin L. The coverage of skin defects over the foot and ankle using the distally based sural neurocutaneous flaps: experience of 21 cases. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2008;61(5):575-577. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2006.02.003
28. Chai Y, Zeng B, Zhang F, Kang Q, Yang Q. Experience with the distally based sural neurofasciocutaneous flap supplied by the terminal perforator of peroneal vessels for ankle and foot reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;59(5):526-531. doi:10.1097/01.sap.0000258969.13723.68
29. Cheema TA, Saleh ES, De Carvalho AF. The distally based sural artery flap for ankle and foot coverage. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2007;46(1):40-47. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2006.10.001
30. Fodor L, Horesh Z, Lerner A, Ramon Y, Peled IJ, Ullmann Y. The distally based sural musculoneurocutaneous flap for treatment of distal tibial osteomyelitis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119(7):2127-2136. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000260596.43001.05
31. Mozafari N, Moosavizadeh SM, Rasti M. The distally based neurocutaneous sural flap: a good choice for reconstruction of soft tissue defects of lower leg, foot and ankle due to fourth degree burn injury. Burns. 2008;34(3):406-411. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2007.04.008
32. Afifi AM, Mahboub TA, Losee JE, Smith DM, Khalil HH. The reverse sural flap: modifications to improve efficacy in foot and ankle reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2008;61(4):430-436. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e318160c165
33. Ahmed SK, Fung BK, Ip WY, Fok M, Chow SP. The versatile reverse flow sural artery neurocutaneous flap: a case series and review of literature. J Orthop Surg Res. 2008;3:15. Published 2008 Apr 18. doi:10.1186/1749-799X-3-15
34. Fraccalvieri M, Bogetti P, Verna G, Carlucci S, Fava R, Bruschi S. Distally based fasciocutaneous sural flap for foot reconstruction: a retrospective review of 10 years experience. Foot Ankle Int. 2008;29(2):191-198. doi:10.3113/FAI.2008.0191
35. Hassanpour SE, Mohammadkhah N, Arasteh E. Is it safe to extract the reverse sural artery flap from the proximal third of the leg?. Arch Iran Med. 2008;11(2):179-185.
36. Parrett BM, Pribaz JJ, Matros E, Przylecki W, Sampson CE, Orgill DP. Risk analysis for the reverse sural fasciocutaneous flap in distal leg reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123(5):1499-1504. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181a07723
37. Reyes S, Andrades P, Fix RJ, Vasconez LO. Distally based superficial sural fasciomusculocutaneous flap: a reliable solution for distal lower extremity reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2008;24(5):315-322. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1080533
38. Abhyankar SV, Kulkarni A, Agarwal NK. Single stage reconstruction of ruptured tendoachilles tendon with skin cover using distally based superficial sural artery flap. Ann Plast Surg. 2009;63(4):425-427. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e31819516cc
39. Ajmal S, Khan MA, Khan RA, Shadman M, Yousof K, Iqbal T. Distally based sural fasciocutaneous flap for soft tissue reconstruction of the distal leg, ankle and foot defects. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2009;21(4):19-23.
40. Erba P, Wettstein R, Tolnay M, Rieger UM, Pierer G, Kalbermatten DF. Neurocutaneous sural flap in paraplegic patients. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62(8):1094-1098. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2008.02.010
41. Uygur F, Evinç R, Noyan N, Duman H. Should we hesitate to use subcutaneous tunneling for fear of damaging the sural flap pedicle?. Ann Plast Surg. 2009;63(1):89-93. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e318184aba2
42. Ali MA, Chowdhury P, Ali M, Ifteker Ibne Zuha, Dev J. Distally-based sural island flap for soft tissue coverage of ankle and heel defects. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2010;20(7):475-477.
43. Cho AB, Pohl PH, Ruggiero GM, Aita MA, Mattar TG, Fukushima WY. The proximally designed sural flap based on the accompanying artery of the lesser saphenous vein. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2010;26(8):501-508. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1261702
44. Ignatiadis IA, Tsiampa VA, Galanakos SP, et al. The reverse sural fasciocutaneous flap for the treatment of traumatic, infectious or diabetic foot and ankle wounds: A retrospective review of 16 patients. Diabet Foot Ankle. 2011;2:10.3402/dfa.v2i0.5653. doi:10.3402/dfa.v2i0.5653
45. Kneser U, Brockmann S, Leffler M, et al. Comparison between distally based peroneus brevis and sural flaps for reconstruction of foot, ankle and distal lower leg: an analysis of donor-site morbidity and clinical outcome. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64(5):656-662. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2010.09.013
46. Mohammadkhah N, Motamed S, Hosseini SN, et al. Complex technique of large sural flap: an alternative option for free flap in large defect of the traumatized foot. Acta Med Iran. 2011;49(4):195-200.
47. Orr J, Kirk KL, Antunez V, Ficke J. Reverse sural artery flap for reconstruction of blast injuries of the foot and ankle. Foot Ankle Int. 2010;31(1):59-64. doi:10.3113/FAI.2010.0059
48. Opara KO, Nwagbara IC, Jiburum BC. Reverse sural island flap elevated from the proximal third of the leg: its reliability and versatility in distal leg and foot reconstruction. Eur J Plast Surg. 2011;34(4):273-278.
49. Peng F, Wu H, Yu G. Distally-based sural neurocutaneous flap for repair of a defect in the ankle tissue. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2011;45(2):77-82. doi:10.3109/2000656X.2011.558732
50. Shu H, Ma B, Kan S, Wang H, Shao H, Watson JT. Treatment of posttraumatic equinus deformity and concomitant soft tissue defects of the heel. J Trauma. 2011;71(6):1699-1704. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e3182396320
51. Wei JW, Dong ZG, Ni JD, et al. Influence of flap factors on partial necrosis of reverse sural artery flap: a study of 179 consecutive flaps. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;72(3):744-750. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e31822a2f2b
52. Dong ZG, Wei JW, Ni JD, et al. Anterograde-retrograde method for harvest of distally based sural fasciocutaneous flap: report of results from 154 patients. Microsurgery. 2012;32(8):611-616. doi:10.1002/micr.22049
53. Hamdi MF, Kalti O, Khelifi A. Experience with the distally based sural flap: a review of 25 cases. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2012;51(5):627-631. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2012.05.029
54. Kececi Y, Sir E. Increasing versatility of the distally based sural flap. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2012;51(5):583-587. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2012.05.018
55. Li Y, Xu J, Zhang XZ. Lowering the pivot point of sural neurofasciocutaneous flaps to reconstruct deep electrical burn wounds in the distal foot. Burns. 2013;39(4):808-813. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2012.08.014
56. Liu L, Zou L, Li Z, Zhang Q, Cao X, Cai J. The extended distally based sural neurocutaneous flap for foot and ankle reconstruction: a retrospective review of 10 years of experience. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72(6):689-694. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e31826c4284
57. Olawoye OA, Ademola SA, Iyun K, Michael A, Oluwatosin O. The reverse sural artery flap for the reconstruction of distal third of the leg and foot. Int Wound J. 2014;11(2):210-214. doi:10.1111/j.1742-481X.2012.01075.x
58. Schmidt K, Jakubietz M, Djalek S, Harenberg PS, Zeplin PH, Jakubietz R. The distally based adipofascial sural artery flap: faster, safer, and easier? A long-term comparison of the fasciocutaneous and adipofascial method in a multimorbid patient population. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(2):360-368. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182589b0e
59. Steffner RJ, Spiguel A, Ranieri J, Suk M, Yoo BJ. Case series of sural island flaps used for soft-tissue defects of the distal-third lower extremity. J Wound Care. 2012;21(10):469-475. doi:10.12968/jowc.2012.21.10.469
60. Weng X, Li X, Ning J, Zhu F, Zhang L. Experience of 56 patients using a retrograde sural neurovascular flap to repair lower limb tissue defects. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2012;46(6):434-437. doi:10.3109/2000656X.2012.722093
61. Capo JT, Husain Q, Shamian B, Beebe KS, Patterson FR, Preston JS. Reverse sural rotational flap in the coverage of the lower leg after musculoskeletal oncologic resection. Eur J Plast Surg. 2013;36(10):645-650.
62. Fathi HR, Fathi M, Javid MJ. S-shaped reverse sural flap for reconstruction of tissue defect on heel. Burns Trauma. 2013;1(1):39-43. Published 2013 Jun 18. doi:10.4103/2321-3868.113334
63. Li YG, Chen XJ, Zhang YZ, et al. Three-dimensional digitalized virtual planning for retrograde sural neurovascular island flaps: a comparative study. Burns. 2014;40(5):974-980. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2013.10.009
64. Liu L, Liu Y, Zou L, Li Z, Cao X, Cai J. The distally based superficial sural flap for reconstruction of the foot and ankle in pediatric patients. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2013;29(3):199-204. doi:10.1055/s-0032-1331146
65. Park JS, Roh SG, Lee NH, Yang KM. Versatility of the distally-based sural artery fasciocutaneous flap on the lower leg and foot in patients with chronic disease. Arch Plast Surg. 2013;40(3):220-225. doi:10.5999/aps.2013.40.3.220
66. Tsai J, Liao HT, Wang PF, Chen CT, Lin CH. Increasing the success of reverse sural flap from proximal part of posterior calf for traumatic foot and ankle reconstruction: patient selection and surgical refinement. Microsurgery. 2013;33(5):342-349. doi:10.1002/micr.22099
67. Yang C, Geng S, Fu C, Sun J, Bi Z. A minimally invasive modified reverse sural adipofascial flap for treating posttraumatic distal tibial and calcaneal osteomyelitis. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2013;12(4):279-285. doi:10.1177/1534734613511637
68. Dhamangaonkar AC, Patankar HS. Reverse sural fasciocutaneous flap with a cutaneous pedicle to cover distal lower limb soft tissue defects: experience of 109 clinical cases. J Orthop Traumatol. 2014;15(3):225-229. doi:10.1007/s10195-014-0304-0
69. Ince B, Daaci M, Altuntas Z, Sodali T, Bilgen F, Evrenos MK. Versatility of delayed reverse-flow islanded sural flap for reconstructing pretibal defects among high-risk patients. Ann Saudi Med. 2014;34(3):235-240. doi:10.5144/0256-4947.2014.235
70. Pan HT, Zheng QX, Yang SH, Wu B, Liu JX. Versatility of reverse sural fasciocutaneous flap for reconstruction of distal lower limb soft tissue defects. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci. 2014;34(3):382-386. doi:10.1007/s11596-014-1287-z
71. Kt R, Mn P, M S. Extended reverse sural artery flap’s safety, success and efficacy - a prospective study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(5):NC08-NC11. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2014/7368.4321
72. Tan O, Aydin OE, Demir R, Barin EZ, Cinal H, Algan S. Neurotized sural flap: An alternative in sensory reconstruction of the foot and ankle defects. Microsurgery. 2015;35(3):183-189. doi:10.1002/micr.22325
73. Zheng H, Liu J, Dai X, Schilling AF. The distally based sural flap for the reconstruction of ankle and foot defects in pediatric patients. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;77(1):97-101. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000000341
74. Grandjean A, Romana C, Fitoussi F. Distally based sural flap for ankle and foot coverage in children. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016;102(1):111-116. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2015.10.010
75. Herlin C, Sinna R, Hamoui M, Canovas F, Captier G, Chaput B. Distal lower extremity coverage by distally based sural flaps: methods to increase their vascular reliability. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2017;62(1):45-54. doi:10.1016/j.anplas.2015.11.002
76. Rothenberger J, Krauss S, Held M, et al. Assessment of sural flap microcirculation: which position maintains the optimal perfusion? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69(4):538-544.
77. Sugg KB, Schaub TA, Concannon MJ, Cederna PS, Brown DL. The reverse superficial sural artery flap revisited for complex lower extremity and foot reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015;3(9):e519. Published 2015 Sep 22. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000000500
78. Zheng L, Zheng J, Dong ZG. Reverse sural flap with an adipofascial extension for reconstruction of soft tissue defects with dead spaces in the heel and ankle. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2016;42(4):503-511. doi:10.1007/s00068-015-0569-x
79. Zhong W, Lu S, Chai Y, Wen G, Wang C, Han P. One-stage reconstruction of complex lower extremity deformity combining Ilizarov external fixation and sural neurocutaneous flap. Ann Plast Surg. 2015;74(4):479-483. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000000479
80. Asʼadi K, Salehi SH, Shoar S. Early reconstruction of distal leg and foot in acute high-voltage electrical burn: does location of pedicle in the zone of injury affect the outcome of distally based sural flap?. Ann Plast Surg. 2017;78(1):41-45. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000000719
81. Ilyas Tahirkheli MU, Ellahi I, Dar MF, Sharif A. Distal based sural fascio-cutaneous flap: a practical limb saviour for wounds of war and peace. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2016;26(5):399-402.
82. Wei JW, Ni JD, Dong ZG, Liu LH, Yang Y. A modified technique to improve reliability of distally based sural fasciocutaneous flap for reconstruction of soft tissue defects longitudinal in distal pretibial region or transverse in heel and ankle. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2016;55(4):753-758. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2016.02.011
83. Yusof NM, Fadzli AS, Azman WS, Azril MA. Acute vascular complications (flap necrosis and congestion) with one stage and two stage distally based sural flap for wound coverage around the ankle. Med J Malaysia. 2016;71(2):47-52.
84. Farooq HU, Ishtiaq R, Mehr S, Ayub S, Chaudhry UH, Ashraf A. Effectiveness of reverse sural artery flap in the management of wheel spoke injuries of the heel. Cureus. 2017;9(6):e1331. doi:10.7759/cureus.1331
85. Larrañaga JJ, Picco PI, Yanzon A, Figari M. Reconstruction of hind and mid-foot defects after melanoma resection using the reverse sural flap: a case series. Surg J (N Y). 2017;3(3):e124-e127. Published 2017 Aug 3. doi:10.1055/s-0037-1604473
86. Mahmoud WH. Foot and ankle reconstruction using the distally based sural artery flap versus the medial plantar flap: a comparative study. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2017;56(3):514-518. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2017.01.019
87. de Rezende MR, Saito M, Paulos RG, et al. Reduction of morbidity with a reverse-flow sural flap: a two-stage technique. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2018;57(4):821-825. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2017.11.020
88. Singh K, Rohilla R, Singh R, Singh S, Singh B, Tanwar M. Outcome of distally based sural artery flap for distal third of leg and foot defects. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2017;29(3):462-465.
89. Yousaf MA, Abidin ZU, Khalid K, et al. Extended islanded reverse sural artery flap for staged reconstruction of foot defects proximal to toes. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2018;28(2):126-128. doi:10.29271/jcpsp.2018.02.126
90. Assi C, Samaha C, Chamoun Moussa M, Hayek T, Yammine K. A comparative study of the reverse sural fascio-cutaneous flap outcomes in the management of foot and ankle soft tissue defects in diabetic and trauma patients. Foot Ankle Spec. 2019;12(5):432-438. doi:10.1177/1938640018816378
91. Korompilias A, Gkiatas I, Korompilia M, Kosmas D, Kostas-Agnantis I. Reverse sural artery flap: a reliable alternative for foot and ankle soft tissue reconstruction. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019;29(2):367-372. doi:10.1007/s00590-018-2330-8
92. Perumal R, Bhowmick K, Reka K, Livingston A, Boopalan PRJVC, Jepegnanam TS. Comparison of reverse sural artery flap healing for traumatic injuries above and below the ankle joint. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2019;58(2):306-311. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2018.08.057
93. Turan K, Tahta M, Bulut T, Akgün U, Sener M. Soft tissue reconstruction of foot and ankle defects with reverse sural fasciocutaneous flaps. Rev Bras Ortop. 2017;53(3):319-322. Published 2017 May 13. doi:10.1016/j.rboe.2017.05.002
94. Kim KJ, Ahn JT, Yoon KT, Lee JH. A comparison of fasciocutaneous and adipofascial methods in the reverse sural artery flap for treatment of diabetic infected lateral malleolar bursitis. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2019;27(1):2309499019828546. doi:10.1177/2309499019828546
95. Dijkink S, Nederpelt CJ, Krijnen P, Velmahos GC, Schipper IB. Trauma systems around the world: a systematic overview. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017;83(5):917-925. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000001633
96. de Blacam C, Colakoglu S, Ogunleye AA, et al. Risk factors associated with complications in lower-extremity reconstruction with the distally based sural flap: a systematic review and pooled analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67(5):607-616. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2014.01.044
97. Peck MD. Epidemiology of burns throughout the world. Part I: Distribution and risk factors. Burns. 2011;37(7):1087-1100. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2011.06.005
99. Culliford AT 4th, Spector J, Blank A, Karp NS, Kasabian A, Levine JP. The fate of lower extremities with failed free flaps: a single institution’s experience over 25 years. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;59(1):18-22. doi:10.1097/01.sap.0000262740.34106.1b
100. Kang MJ, Chung CH, Chang YJ, Kim KH. Reconstruction of the lower extremity using free flaps. Arch Plast Surg. 2013;40(5):575-583. doi:10.5999/aps.2013.40.5.575
101. Luangjarmekorn P, Kitidumrongsuk P, Honsawek S. Complications and secondary surgeries after free flap for limb reconstruction at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital: a ten-year retrospective review of patient data. Asian Biomed. 2017;11(3):235-243. doi:10.5372/1905-7415.1103.554
