Optimizing the Use of Pedicled versus Random Pattern Local Flaps in the Foot and Ankle

Background:The aim of this study was to compare the use of pedicled local (PFs) versus random pattern flaps (RpFs) in foot and ankle reconstruction in patients with chronic, nonhealing wounds.Methods:A single-center, retrospective review of 204 patients with 118 PFs and 86 RpFs was performed. The primary outcome included rates of limb salvage.Results:PFs were used more often in the hindfoot (44.1% versus 30.2%, P = 0.045), lateral and medial surface (39.8% versus 18.6%, P = 0.001), and wounds containing exposed bone and hardware (78.8% versus 62.8%, P = 0.018). RpFs were used more for forefoot (19.8% versus 10.2%, P = 0.053) and plantar defects (58.1% versus 30.3%, P = 0.000). RpFs had a higher rate of immediate success (100% versus 95.8%, P = 0.053), with no significant differences in rate of long-term limb salvage (77.1% versus 69.8%, P = 0.237). PFs had higher rates of ischemia requiring intervention (11.0% versus 3.5%, P = 0.048). RpFs had a higher rate of minor amputations (15.12% versus 6.8%, P = 0.053) but similar rates of major amputation (15.1% versus 16.1%, P = 0.848). There were no significant differences in rates of mortality or ambulatory status.Conclusions:Both RpFs and PFs remain reliable options to reconstruct defects of the foot and ankle. Optimizing the use of each flap type should consider wound characteristics. RpFs are preferred for dorsal and plantar defects, whereas PFs are protective for minor infections and preferred for deeper wounds despite a higher rate of partial necrosis.