Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 26, 2025

Engineered Vascularized Muscle Flap
Published on: January 11, 2016
Lumbar Perforator Flaps for Coverage of Extensive Defects With Osteomyelitis
Clara Schaffer1, David Guillier, Wassim Raffoul
1From the Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery Department, Lausanene University Hospital (Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois - CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Introduction:
Lumbar osteomyelitis is a rare, although serious condition if not appropriately treated, potentially leading to neurologic complications, such as radiculopathy. Traditionally, studies have suggested the preferred use of muscle or myocutaneous flaps to prevent recurrent infections. However, late evidence suggests that radical debridement and dead space obliteration are more important than the type of flap. The lumbar perforator flap is a reliable local option with low donor site morbidity. It is a powerful tool for local trunk reconstruction, but its use in case of osteomyelitis is scarcely described. We aimed to report long-term outcomes of lumbar perforator flaps to cover lumbar soft tissue defects with chronic osteomyelitis.
Material And Methods:
This retrospective investigation was performed on a prospectively maintained database including 7 consecutive patients (10 flaps), all presenting extensive defects of the posterior midline at L2-S1 level (defect size 287 ± 136 cm [average ± SD]). Four patients presented defects after recurrent tumor resection, whereas in 2 patients, the defect was due to vascular jeopardy of internal iliac arteries with consequent necrosis. Last defect derived from debridement of a neglected wound in a paraplegic patient. All patients had concomitant bone infection. Infectious details and postoperative complications were recorded.
Results:
Patients were in general poor medical condition (including peripheral arterial disease, hypertension, diabetes, or a combination of these). Eight flaps were raised as propeller perforator, whereas 2 as V-Y perforator. One propelled flap had venous congestion on postoperative day 1 and required a revision surgery to be converted to V-Y. Subsequent partial flap necrosis was treated conservatively. One patient presented a wound dehiscence that required surgical revision. All flaps were closed primarily except for 1 patient whose flap presented a mild intraoperative congestion, which was treated by delayed closure on postoperative day 6, with uneventful outcome. Time to complete healing was 29 ± 17 days (mean ± SD). No flap loss occurred, and all patients benefited from effective coverage at a mean follow-up of 20 months.
Conclusions:
Lumbar perforator flap is a reliable option to cover large soft tissue defects in the lumbar area despite chronic osteomyelitis, with low morbidity and acceptable cosmetic outcome.
Insights
Lumbar perforator flaps effectively cover soft tissue defects in chronic osteomyelitis cases. This reliable local option offers low morbidity and good cosmetic results for lumbar reconstruction.
Area of Science:
- Reconstructive surgery
- Orthopedic surgery
- Plastic surgery
Background:
- Lumbar osteomyelitis is a serious condition requiring appropriate treatment to prevent complications.
- Traditional treatments favored muscle or myocutaneous flaps for recurrent infections.
- Recent evidence highlights radical debridement and dead space obliteration as crucial.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the long-term outcomes of using lumbar perforator flaps for lumbar soft tissue defects in patients with chronic osteomyelitis.
- To assess the reliability and effectiveness of lumbar perforator flaps in this specific patient population.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of 7 consecutive patients (10 flaps) with extensive posterior midline defects (L2-S1).
- Defects resulted from tumor resection, vascular compromise, or debridement of neglected wounds.
- All patients had concomitant bone infection; infectious details and complications were recorded.
Main Results:
- Patients often had significant comorbidities.
- Eight flaps were propeller perforators, two were V-Y perforators; one required revision due to venous congestion.
- Complete healing occurred in 29 ± 17 days; no flap loss was observed with a mean follow-up of 20 months.
Conclusions:
- Lumbar perforator flaps are a dependable choice for reconstructing large lumbar soft tissue defects.
- These flaps demonstrate low donor site morbidity and acceptable cosmetic outcomes, even in the presence of chronic osteomyelitis.

