Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsCase Report / SeriesPubMed

Reconstruction of hand skin defects by microdissected mini anterolataral thigh perforator flaps.

Kimura N., Saito M., Sumiya Y., Itoh N.

Case Report / Series on Scar, published in J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg (2008) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Case Report / Series
Journal
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg (2008)
Country
Netherlands
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
18625576
DOI
10.1016/j.bjps.2008.02.014

Abstract (original English)

Three cases of traumatic skin defect and two cases of secondary skin defect after releasing scar contractures on the dorsum or palm of the hand, except for the fingers and thumb, were successfully reconstructed with the use of microdissected thin anterolateral thigh perforator flaps. This particular type of reconstruction needs thin, small flap coverage with a reliable blood supply from a long vascular pedicle. Microdissection of the perforator enables the distribution of vessels towards the thin layer of adipose tissue to be identified and the vessel in the deep adipose layer to be used as an additional pedicle vessel. Therefore, a small and thin flap can be elevated accurately with a longer vascular pedicle than is possible with the conventional method of flap elevation.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • Without an adequate control group, treatment effects cannot be separated from other factors.

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence
Adipose TissueAdultCicatrixContractureDermatologic Surgical ProceduresHand InjuriesHumansMaleMicrosurgeryMiddle Aged

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research