Muscular Versus Non-Muscular Free Flaps for Soft Tissue Coverage of Chronic Tibial Osteomyelitis

Eradication of chronic tibial osteomyelitis necessitates aggressive debridement is often followed by soft tissue reconstruction. Muscular flaps are said to be more effective than non-muscular flaps for infection treatment, while fasciocutaneous and perforator flaps are considered to be less invasive and offering a better aesthetic result.

In this study, we reviewed 24 consecutive cases of chronic tibial osteomyelitis treated according to a specific protocol in a tertiary hospital. Soft tissue coverage was done with either muscular or non-muscular free flaps. Infection recurrence and complications were compared between different flap types. Additionally, we assessed the long-term functional and aesthetic results and patient's satisfaction.

Muscular flap was used in 13 patients (13 latissimus dorsi and 1 serratus anterior) and 11 patients underwent fasciocutaneous/perforator flaps [1 anterolateral thigh flap, 4 lateral arm flaps, 5 thoracodorsal artery perforator (TAP) flaps and 1 radial forearm flap]. Infection was resolved for 84.6% of patients in the muscular flaps group and 90.9% in the non-muscular flaps group. None of the patients with muscular flaps were satisfied with the aesthetic appearance of their reconstructed leg when compared to 83.3% of patients with non-muscular flaps. Also, a slight regain of touch sensitivity was acknowledged in the non-muscular flap group compared to the muscular.

In this study of adult chronic tibial osteomyelitis cases, we demonstrated that fasciocutaneous and perforator free flaps offer a comparable efficacy to the muscle flaps for infection treatment, with a significantly higher patient satisfaction and aesthetic result.