Flap survival and functional outcomes in elbow soft tissue reconstruction: A 25-year systematic review

Different elbow flap reconstructions have been described in the literature. We aim to define the optimal flap technique based on defect size and etiology.

A systematic review was undertaken using the terms "(Elbow reconstruction) AND ((Soft tissue) OR (flap))". Flaps were grouped under fasciocutaneous (FCF), muscular (MF), distant pedicled (DPF), and free flaps (FF). The primary outcome was flap survival. The secondary outcomes were postoperative complications and range of motion (pROM).

Twenty articles with 224 patients were included. Defect sizes were small (<10 cm²) (18%), medium (10-30 cm²) (23%), large (30-100 cm²) (43%), and massive (>100 cm²) (16%). Etiologies included trauma (26%), burn contractures (26%), infection (26%), hardware coverage (16%), and others (6%). FCF (54%) was the preferred flap followed by MF (28%), DPF (13%), and FF (5%). The rate of flap necrosis was 4% and that of other complications was 10%. The postoperative range of motion (pROM) (reported in 154 patients) was >100°, 50-100°, and <50° in 82%, 17%, and 1% of the cases, respectively. Small defects were most commonly reconstructed with MFs (83%), medium defects were reconstructed with MFs (52%) or FCFs (46%), and large defects were reconstructed with FCFs (91%). Massive defects predominantly required DPFs (60%) and FFs (26%). FCFs were the most common reconstruction method for burn contractures (84%), infections (55%), and traumatic defects (51%). Hardware coverage was predominantly performed using MFs (86%). No difference in complications and pROM was found between flap techniques.

Elbow flap reconstruction can be performed using different techniques. FCFs are the most commonly used reconstruction method. MFs are useful for smaller defects and hardware coverage. DPFs and FFs are needed for massive injuries.