INTRODUCTION
The coverage of defects caused by electrical burns on the upper limbs is challenging,
especially when bones, tendons, or joints are exposed. Among the options of local
flaps for the coverage of deep hand lesions, we pay special attention to the pedicles
in the radial or ulnar arteries1; however, both cause great morbidity to the donor area and sacrifice one of the main
arteries responsible for hand irrigation2. Distant flaps, such as groin or abdominal flaps, are reliable alternatives; however,
they require more than one surgery and may result in prolonged immobility, thus impairing
rehabilitation3.
The reverse posterior interosseous flap of the forearm is a reproducible alternative
for covering hand lesions with less morbidity in the donor area, low loss rates, and
excellent aesthetic results4. Originally described as a fasciocutaneous flap with rotation to the elbow region,
it is maintained by the posterior interosseous artery of the forearm. It presents
a modification based on the reverse flow of this artery through its distal anastomosis
to the anterior interosseous artery, allowing rotation towards the hand; however,
in 18% of cases, this anastomosis does not exist, thus making use of this flap impossible5.
It is a flap commonly used to cover lesions on the back of wrists and hands, thumbs,
and first commissures since it does not usually reach the palmar region6. Thus, we present the use of the posterior reverse forearm interosseous flap to cover
the palm of the right hand in a patient with 3rd degree electrical burn injuries.
CASE STUDY
A healthy 33-year-old male patient was admitted to the Hospital das Clínicas of the
University of São Paulo Medical School (HC-FMUSP) 40 min after suffering an electrical
burn caused by contact with a metal object in a high voltage (10,000 V) power grid.
After initial polytraumatic care, he was transferred to the intensive care burn unit
for cardiac monitoring and surveillance of renal function.
He presented with 3rd degree burns on 3% of his body surface. His right palm (Figure 1A) was the entry point and his left shoulder (posterior surface) was the exit point.
In addition, there was a deep 2nd degree burn on the anterior surface of his left arm.
Figure 1 - A: Burn area on the palmar surface of the right hand at the time of admission. B: Evolutionary aspect of the lesion after 1st debridement, on the 7th day postinjury
(DPQ). C: Evolution after debridement performed on the 10th DAB. D: Resulting defect after the 3rd debridement on the 14th DAB.
Figure 1 - A: Burn area on the palmar surface of the right hand at the time of admission. B: Evolutionary aspect of the lesion after 1st debridement, on the 7th day postinjury
(DPQ). C: Evolution after debridement performed on the 10th DAB. D: Resulting defect after the 3rd debridement on the 14th DAB.
The patient underwent three conservative debridements of the burned area of his hand,
delimiting a palmar lesion of approximately 8.5 cm x 3.5 cm and to a depth of 1.5
cm (Figures 1B, 1C, and 1D). In the posterior surface of his left shoulder, the defect was 2.5 cm deep and approximately
8 cm in diameter.
We chose to perform a reverse posterior interosseous flap of his right forearm on
the 14th day postinjury (Figure 2). The 15 cm x 4 cm dissected flap allowed adequate coverage of the entire lesion
on the palmar surface requiring skin grafting obtained from the inguinal region to
close the donor area of the flap on the forearm. The patient’s shoulder lesion was
closed with a local advancement flap during the same surgery. On the 5th postoperative day, the interosseous flap was viable, without congestion or ischemia,
and the grafted area had 100% integration (Figure 3).
Figure 2 - A: Peninsular fasciocutaneous posterior reverse interosseous flap of the dissected
forearm kept in its bed. B: Forearm posterior interosseous nerve preserved after dissection of the flap. C: Resulting defect in the posterior face of the forearm after flap transposition. D: Flap positioned in the defect on the palmar surface of the right hand.
Figure 2 - A: Peninsular fasciocutaneous posterior reverse interosseous flap of the dissected
forearm kept in its bed. B: Forearm posterior interosseous nerve preserved after dissection of the flap. C: Resulting defect in the posterior face of the forearm after flap transposition. D: Flap positioned in the defect on the palmar surface of the right hand.
Figure 3 - A: Appearance of the flap on the 1st postoperative day (PO day), still congested.
B: Flap with reduced edema and excellent appearance on the 5th PO day, without necrosis
areas. C: Donor grafted area, evolving with good .graft integration and partial view of the
profile of the flap transposed to the palmar region.
Figure 3 - A: Appearance of the flap on the 1st postoperative day (PO day), still congested.
B: Flap with reduced edema and excellent appearance on the 5th PO day, without necrosis
areas. C: Donor grafted area, evolving with good .graft integration and partial view of the
profile of the flap transposed to the palmar region.
After discharge from the hospital, the patient began physiotherapy to improve the
motricity of his right hand. He has maintained satisfactory progress over the past
3 years without complaints (Figure 4), with preserved functionality of his right hand and an adequate aesthetic aspect.
Figure 4 - A: Ventral face of forearm and hand showing excellent flap appearance after 3 years
of follow-up. B: View of the dorsal face of the forearm, without scars. C: Donor area of the flap with discrete scar and profile view of the flap, showing good
coverage.
Figure 4 - A: Ventral face of forearm and hand showing excellent flap appearance after 3 years
of follow-up. B: View of the dorsal face of the forearm, without scars. C: Donor area of the flap with discrete scar and profile view of the flap, showing good
coverage.
DISCUSSION
Deep lesions of the hand tend to cause exposure of noble structures, requiring flaps
for adequate coverage and better rehabilitation. The flaps used should be versatile
to allow for the coverage of a variety of lesions, allow reproducible technical execution,
and possess reliable vascularization7.
The reverse posterior interosseous flap of the forearm is a long flap with many advantages,
having been first described by Zancolli and Angrigiani in 19868. It has proven useful for covering defects on the backs of hands and wrists. It has
proximity to the receiving bed of the hand, a wide rotational arch, minimal lesions
to the lymphatic vessels, preservation of the main vessels that perfuse the forearm
and the hand (radial and ulnar arteries), and no requirement for microsurgical techniques
(except for potential primary closure of the donor area, which was not observed in
our case)3. In addition, it is thin, has good flexibility and skin texture (similar to that
of the hand), and permits coverage of various tissues, such as bones, muscles, tendons,
and fascia.
Despite being considered in the literature as being easily and reproducibly obtained,
the flap’s anatomical variations of its perforating vessel have already been described,
as well as lesions of the posterior interosseous nerve of the forearm and rupture
of the distal anastomosis. It is therefore important to proceed carefully during the
dissection and have anatomical knowledge of the region9.
The main complication of the posterior reverse interosseous flap of the forearm is
congestion by occlusion of the venous return after its rotation which may progress
to necrosis7. Neuwirth et al., in 20134, after evaluating 40 flaps to cover wrist and back of the hand lesions, reported
the occurrence of partial necrosis at 15% and of total necrosis at 5%. The dissection
of a peninsular flap, as in the case described, allowed the inclusion of distally
located perforators, reducing the possibility of the occurrence of congestion and
necrosis5.
In the study by Kai et al., in 20136, who evaluated the reverse forearm flap based on the posterior interosseous artery
for reconstruction of the first hand commissure in 12 burn patients, demonstrated
its safety with no resulting cases of congestion or necrosis in his series. He recommended
an interval of 2 weeks before reconstruction after electrical burns. This allows for
multiple debridements and better delineation of the necrotic area, which develops
during the first 2 weeks, similar to that observed in our case. In severely burned
patients, this interval can be extended to 3 to 4 weeks6.
According to Gavaskar, in 201010, the distal reach of the flap in his series was to the proximal thumb joint. Defects
beyond this point may be difficult to cover, since traction in the pedicle may cause
vascular insufficiency. In the case reported, the flap maintained its irrigation through
the anterior interosseous artery, with excellent perfusion even after its rotation
to the palmar face and anterior positioning.
CONCLUSION
The forearm posterior interosseous flap with a reverse rotation arch is a good option
for treating deep palm injuries, allowing adequate coverage, and preserving functionality.
COLLABORATIONS
RCL
|
Data Curation, Final manuscript approval, Realization of operations and/or trials,
Writing - Original Draft Preparation, Writing - Review & Editing
|
WMM
|
Analysis and/or data interpretation, Data Curation, Final manuscript approval, Writing
- Original Draft Preparation, Writing - Review & Editing
|
PTJ
|
Final manuscript approval, Realization of operations and/or trials, Writing - Review
& Editing
|
DAM
|
Final manuscript approval, Realization of operations and/or trials, Writing - Review
& Editing
|
HAN
|
Analysis and/or data interpretation, Final manuscript approval, Realization of operations
and/or trials, Writing - Review & Editing
|
RG
|
Final manuscript approval, Writing - Review & Editing
|
REFERENCES
1. El-Shazly M. Fashioning reversed axial pattern forearm tissues in different challenging
conditions of the forearm territory as a reliable substitute for free tissue transfer.
Acta Chir Plast. 2012;54(2):53-8. PMID: 23565845.
2. Hekner DD, Abbink JH, van Es RJ, Rosenberg A, Koole R, Van Cann EM. Donor-site morbidity
of the radial forearm free flap versus the ulnar forearm free flap. Plast Reconstr
Surg. 2013 Aug;132(2):387-93. PMID: 23584626. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318295896c
3. Baylan JM, Chambers JA, McMullin N, et al. Reverse posterior interosseous flap for
defects of the dorsal ulnar wrist using previously burned and recently grafted skin.
Burns. 2016 Mar;42(2):e24-30. PMID: 26652146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2015.06.020
4. Neuwirth M, Hubmer M, Koch H. The posterior interosseous artery flap: clinical results
with special emphasis on donor site morbidity. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013
May;66(5):623-628. PMID: 23375239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2012.12.018
5. Fujiwara M, Kawakatsu M, Yoshida Y, Sumiya A. Modified posterior interosseous flap
in hand reconstruction. Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg. 2003 Sep;7(3):102-109. PMID: 16518227.
6. Kai S, Zhao J, Jin Z, et al. Release of severe post-burn contracture of the first
web space using the reverse posterior interosseous flap: our experience with 12 cases.
Burns. 2013 Sep;39(6):1285-1289. PMID: 23523223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2013.02.002
7. Acharya AM, Bhat AK, Bhaskaranand K. The reverse posterior interosseous artery flap:
technical considerations in raising an easier and more reliable flap. J Hand Surg
Am. 2012 Mar;37(3):575-582. PMID: 22321438. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.12.031
8. Zancolli E, Angrigiani C. Posterior interosseous island forearm flap. J Hand Surg
Br. 1988 May;13(2):130-35. PMID: 3385286.
9. Zaidenberg EE, Farias-Cisneros E, Pastrana MJ, Zaidenberg CR. Extended posterior interosseous
artery flap: anatomical and clinical study. J Hand Surg Am. 2017 Mar;42(3):182-189.
PMID: 28259275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.01.004
10. Gavaskar AS. Posterior interosseous artery flap for resurfacing posttraumatic soft
tissue defects of the hand. Hand. 2010 Apr;5(4):397-402. PMID: 22131922. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11552-010-9267-7
1. Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo,
SP, Brazil.
Corresponding author: Rodolfo Costa Lobato Rua Doutor Melo Alves, nº 55, CJ 23, Cerqueira César, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Zip
Code: 01417-010. E-mail: rodolfolobato49@yahoo.com.br
Article received: October 22, 2018.
Article accepted: April 21, 2019.
Institution: Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São
Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Conflicts of interest: none.