4.6 Article

Neurovascular Anatomy of Sartorius Muscle Flaps: Implications for Local Transposition and Facial Reanimation

期刊

PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
卷 123, 期 1, 页码 44-54

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181904bc6

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The sartorius muscle is a superficial muscle of the thigh that possesses highly suitable qualities for many uses in local transposition and free muscle transfer. However, a paucity of description of the neurovascular anatomy of the sartorius has contributed to its infrequent use in these roles. Methods: Both human and canine studies were undertaken to delineate the neurovascular anatomy of the sartorius and to determine the role for surgical delay clinically. Fifty-five human cadaveric sartorius muscles and 30 canine cadaveric sartorius muscles underwent angiographic and dissection studies, and the location and course of the vessels and nerves supplying sartorius are described. A subsequent study was undertaken in two live canines in which the vascular supply to the sartorius was evaluated before and after surgical delay. Results: The sartorius is supplied by an average of six or seven vascular pedicles, the size, location, and course of which are described. The nerve supply to the sartorius enters at its proximal end and uniformly arises from a branch of the femoral nerve. Variations in branching patterns and course of nerves and vessels are described. Living canine studies demonstrated the dilatation of intramuscular vessels following surgical delay, with the contrast injection of a single remaining vascular pedicle shown to vascularize the entire length of the sartorius muscle. Conclusions: The sartorius is highly suitable for local transposition and free muscle transfer for facial reanimation. The neurovascular anatomy is reliable, and the use of surgical delay can augment its vascular supply and increase the arc of rotation for local transposition. (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 123: 44, 2009.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据