Comparison of gluteal perforator flaps and gluteal fasciocutaneous rotation flaps for reconstruction of sacral pressure sores

SummaryBackground and aimThe gluteus maximus myocutaneous flap was considered the workhorse that reconstructed sacral pressure sores, but was gradually replaced by fasciocutaneous flap because of several disadvantages. With the advent of the perforator flap technique, gluteal perforator (GP) flap has gained popularity nowadays. The aim of this study was to compare the complications and outcomes between GP flaps and gluteal fasciocutaneous rotation (FR) flaps in the treatment of sacral pressure sores.MethodsBetween April 2007 and June 2012, 63 patients underwent sacral pressure sore reconstructions, with a GP flap used in 31 cases and an FR flap used in 32 cases.Data collected on the patients included patient age, gender, co-morbidity for being bedridden and follow-up time. Surgical details collected included the defect size, operative time and estimated blood loss. Complications recorded included re-operation, dehiscence, flap necrosis, wound infection, sinus formation, donor-site morbidity and recurrence. The complications and clinical outcomes were compared between these two groups.ResultsWe found that there was no significant difference in patient demographics, surgical complications and recurrence between these two groups. In gluteal FR flap group, all recurrent cases (five) were treated by reuse of previous flaps.ConclusionsBoth methods are comparable, good and safe in treating sacral pressure sores. Gluteal FR flap can be performed without microsurgical dissection, and re-rotation is feasible in recurrent cases. The authors suggest using gluteal FR flaps in patients with a high risk of sore recurrence.