Assessment of soft tissue coverage and its implications for extremity injury management

Nº de DOI: 10.34896/RSI.2026.69.43.001

AUTHORS

1. Ana Paula León Rodríguez. General Practitioner. Attached to Carlos Andrade Marín Hospital. Graduate of the University of the Americas. (Quito-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8572-8452
2. Diego Fernando Silva Aguayo. General Practitioner. Attached to IESS Hospital Ibarra. Graduate of the Central University of Ecuador. (Ibarra-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0913-3905
3. Marjuri Jasmin Quimbita Panchi. General Practitioner. Attached to Private Clinics of Ecuador. Graduated from the Central University of Ecuador. (Latacunga-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8286-8174
4. Max Elio Pontón Gaona. General Practitioner and Master’s Degree in Nutrition and Dietetics. Attached to the Basic Hospital of Yantzaza. Graduate of the National University of Loja. (Zamora-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9860-5824
5. Mauricio Andres Coral. ProañoGeneral Practitioner and Master’s Degree in Occupational Health and Safety with a Specialization in Occupational Risk Prevention. Attached to Private Clinics in Ecuador. Graduate of the Central University of Ecuador. (Quito-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0009-0005-1923-0396

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to critically evaluate current assessment methods for soft tissue coverage in extremity injuries, analyze the decision-making criteria guiding reconstructive choices, and explore how these strategies influence healing, functionality, and limb preservation, thereby contributing to the optimization of extremity injury management protocols.

KEY WORDS

Soft tissue coverage, extremity trauma, limb salvage, orthoplastic approach, flap selection, local flaps, free flaps, negative pressure wound therapy.

RESUMEN

Este artículo tiene como objetivo evaluar críticamente los métodos actuales de valoración para la cobertura de tejidos blandos en lesiones de las extremidades, analizar los criterios de toma de decisiones que guían las opciones reconstructivas y explorar cómo estas estrategias influyen en la cicatrización, la funcionalidad y la preservación del miembro, contribuyendo así a la optimización de los protocolos de manejo de las lesiones de las extremidades.

PALABRAS CLAVE

Cobertura de tejidos blandos, trauma de extremidades, salvamento del miembro, enfoque ortoplástico, selección de colgajos, colgajos locales, colgajos libres, terapia de presión negativa para heridas

INTRODUCTION

The management of extremity injuries presents a complex clinical challenge, particularly concerning the effective coverage of soft tissue defects that often result from high-energy trauma, surgical debridement, or infection. Adequate soft tissue coverage is critical not only for protecting underlying structures such as bones, tendons, and neurovascular bundles but also for promoting optimal healing, preventing infection, and preserving limb functionality. Advances in diagnostic modalities—including various imaging techniques and clinical assessment tools—have enhanced our ability to accurately evaluate the extent of soft tissue damage and vascular integrity, thereby informing appropriate reconstructive strategies. The selection of an optimal soft tissue coverage method hinges upon multiple factors, including the size and location of the defect, the patient’s overall health status, and the presence of comorbidities such as diabetes or peripheral vascular disease, which can influence wound healing capacity. Clinicians face the crucial decision of choosing between primary closure, local flaps, or more complex microsurgical free flaps, each with distinct indications, benefits, and potential complications. The timing and technique of soft tissue coverage are well-documented to significantly impact clinical outcomes—early intervention has been associated with reduced infection rates, improved functional recovery, and higher rates of limb salvage. Conversely, delayed or inadequate coverage can lead to persistent infections, chronic wounds, and ultimately, limb loss. Despite these established principles, there remains ongoing debate and research regarding the most effective assessment tools, criteria for selecting specific reconstructive techniques, and their long-term implications on patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

Critically evaluate current methods for assessing soft tissue coverage in limb injuries, analyze the decision-making criteria that guide reconstructive options, and explore how these strategies influence healing, functionality, and limb preservation, thereby contributing to the optimization of limb injury treatment protocols.

METHODOLOGY

This work was conducted as a narrative literature review aimed at synthesising current evidence on the assessment of soft tissue coverage and its impact on the management of upper and lower extremity injuries. A structured search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for English-language articles published between January 2000 and October 2025. The following keywords and Boolean combinations were used: “soft tissue coverage”, “extremity trauma”, “lower extremity reconstruction”, “upper extremity reconstruction”, “flap selection”, “local flap”, “free flap”, “orthoplastic approach”, and “Gustilo IIIB fractures”.

Original research articles, systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, and high-quality narrative reviews addressing principles of soft tissue management, timing and techniques of coverage, flap options (local, regional, and free flaps), and outcomes related to infection, non-union, limb salvage, and function were considered eligible. Studies focusing exclusively on non-extremity sites, experimental animal models without clear clinical correlation, non–peer-reviewed documents, and articles not available in English were excluded.

The reference lists of key publications and recent reviews on orthoplastic management and lower extremity reconstruction were manually screened to identify additional relevant articles. Given the heterogeneity of study designs, patient populations, and outcome measures, no formal meta-analysis was attempted.

RESULTS

Evaluation Methods for Soft Tissue Coverage in Extremity Injuries:

What diagnostic tools are most effective for assessing soft tissue damage?

Among the various diagnostic modalities available, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound stand out as the most effective tools for assessing soft tissue damage, each offering distinct advantages in clinical practice¹. MRI, with its superior ability to visualize soft tissues, enables practitioners to detect a range of injuries including herniations, tears, compressions, and bulges in the discs, which are critical for understanding potential impacts on nerve function within the spinal column¹. This high-resolution imaging capability allows clinicians to identify issues that may be missed by traditional X-rays, thus supporting more precise diagnoses and tailored treatment plans^1,2. Additionally, ultrasound has emerged as a valuable complement to MRI, particularly in situations where immediate or dynamic assessment is required, such as evaluating rotator cuff tendons for tears or strains^2,3. The portability and real-time imaging of ultrasound make it especially useful for tissues that are challenging to assess with other methods, further enhancing its role in musculoskeletal diagnostics³. The integration of these tools not only improves diagnostic accuracy but also facilitates targeted interventions based on specific injury characteristics, underscoring the need for broader access and insurance coverage to optimize patient outcomes^1,2.

How is the extent of soft tissue loss quantified in clinical practice?

In clinical practice, the quantification of soft tissue loss relies on a combination of advanced imaging modalities and specialized assessment techniques that provide both qualitative and quantitative data. Imaging serves as a cornerstone for characterizing the extent and precise localization of soft tissue damage, confirming clinical suspicions, and guiding subsequent management decisions⁴. For instance, shear-wave ultrasound elastography is increasingly used as a noninvasive approach to obtain quantitative estimates of tissue elasticity, offering clinicians objective metrics to assess tissue integrity and monitor healing progress over time⁵. Complementing these imaging methods, innovative approaches such as the utilization of open-source software for 3D imaging allow for a more comprehensive and reproducible evaluation of wound extents and soft tissue lesions, thereby enhancing the accuracy of clinical documentation and facilitating better communication across multidisciplinary care teams⁶. These interlinked diagnostic strategies not only enable precise measurement and tracking of soft tissue loss but also inform the selection of reconstructive options, ultimately underscoring the need for continued integration of advanced technologies and standardized protocols to optimize patient outcomes.

Which imaging techniques are preferred for evaluating vascular integrity in injured extremities?

The evaluation of vascular integrity in injured extremities necessitates a multimodal imaging approach, with each technique offering distinct advantages that interconnect to optimize diagnosis and management. Historically, conventional angiography has been regarded as the gold standard due to its high diagnostic accuracy, however, its invasive nature and limited availability have prompted a shift toward less invasive modalities in recent years⁷. Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) has emerged as a preferred method, providing rapid, detailed visualization of arterial injuries and allowing for the assessment of both proximal occlusions and distal flow reconstitution through advanced techniques such as 3D volume rendering and multiplanar reconstruction⁷.This capability is especially valuable in the acute trauma setting, as CTA can reveal non-opacification of arteries, helping clinicians delineate the extent and nature of vascular injuries with high precision⁷. Complementing CTA, Doppler sonography and focused ultrasound assessments are frequently utilized due to their low cost, broad accessibility, and excellent specificity for significant vascular trauma, making them particularly suitable for initial evaluation and for use in settings where CTA is not immediately available⁷. The interconnected use of these modalities ensures that vascular injuries are detected promptly and accurately, facilitating timely communication with trauma teams and the initiation of urgent interventions to mitigate limb-threatening complications⁸. In light of these interdependencies, institutions should strive to establish protocols that integrate advanced CTA with point-of-care ultrasound and ensure rapid multidisciplinary response, thereby optimizing outcomes for patients with extremity vascular trauma.

Criteria for Selecting Soft Tissue Coverage Techniques:

What factors influence the choice between primary closure and flap coverage?

The decision-making process between primary closure and flap coverage is multifactorial, with wound complexity and defect size playing pivotal roles in guiding the surgical approach^9,10. When the defect is small and the surrounding soft tissue can be approximated with minimal tension, primary closure is often preferred, as it is associated with higher revision-free survival rates and lower complication risks⁹. However, as defect size increases—particularly beyond 50 cm²—the risks of complications such as amputation rise, thus tipping the balance toward the use of flap procedures, which provide more robust vascular coverage and structural support^9,10. The tension of the surrounding tissue further complicates this decision, as excessive tension may compromise wound healing and necessitate flap coverage to ensure adequate closure and minimize the risk of breakdown⁹. In addition, the presence of infection, patient comorbidities, and the quality of the wound bed—including vascularity and the nature of the tissue—interact to influence the optimal closure strategy^9,10. Notably, the choice of flap is itself influenced by the ability to contour the flap to the defect, the required pedicle length, and the need for volume replacement, which are especially relevant in complex or anatomically challenging locations¹⁰. These interrelated factors underscore the importance of individualized, rational decision-making, integrating anatomical, physiological, and patient-specific considerations to optimize outcomes. Moving forward, concerted efforts must focus on enhancing intraoperative assessment, precise defect measurement, and standardized documentation to enable evidence-based selection of closure techniques and improve patient care.

How do patient comorbidities affect the selection of soft tissue reconstruction methods?

Patient comorbidities play a pivotal role in shaping the strategy for soft tissue reconstruction, as their presence can significantly alter healing trajectories, elevate complication risks, and undermine functional recovery¹⁰. Chronic conditions such as diabetes, vascular disease, or histories of smoking and radiation exposure can compromise tissue perfusion and resistance to infection, thereby limiting the viability of conventional reconstructive options like local advancement or rotation flaps¹¹. Furthermore, multiple prior surgeries, the presence of infections, or previously irradiated tissue often result in scarring and poor local tissue quality, making traditional approaches less effective and necessitating the consideration of more versatile and vascularized techniques such as perforator or free flaps to achieve reliable closure and minimize complications¹¹. The intricate interplay between these comorbidities not only influences immediate surgical choices but also dictates the long-term prognosis and the likelihood of achieving sustained wound healing, highlighting the critical need for individualized reconstructive plans and multidisciplinary management to optimize patient outcomes.

What are the indications for using microsurgical versus local flap techniques?

Despite the importance of advanced imaging techniques in the diagnostic process and preoperative planning for soft tissue coverage, the decision-making process for selecting between microsurgical and local flap techniques remains complex and often relies on multiple factors beyond imaging findings¹⁰. The choice is influenced by the extent of tissue loss, local vascularity, the condition of surrounding tissues, patient comorbidities, and the expertise available within the surgical team¹⁰. Furthermore, the interplay between the need for reliable coverage and the preservation of function often dictates the approach, as microsurgical flaps may offer superior outcomes in extensive or poorly vascularized defects, whereas local flaps are typically preferred for smaller, well-vascularized wounds with favorable local tissue conditions¹⁰. Given the lack of explicit guidelines in the current literature regarding these indications, there is a pressing need for well-defined, evidence-based criteria to guide clinicians in optimizing reconstructive strategies for lower limb defects.

Impact of Soft Tissue Coverage on Extremity Injury Outcomes:

How does timely soft tissue coverage affect infection rates and healing?

Timely soft tissue coverage plays a pivotal role in influencing infection rates and the overall healing trajectory in cases of soft tissue loss, particularly by creating a physiological barrier that shields exposed structures from external contaminants and further injury^12,13. This intervention, when administered promptly after adequate debridement and infection control, reduces the opportunity for microbial colonization and persistent infection, thereby promoting a healthier wound bed and facilitating tissue regeneration¹³. The interrelationship between infection resolution and coverage timing is crucial, as premature reconstruction in the presence of active infection can lead to increased complications, while delayed coverage risks prolonged exposure and subsequent tissue desiccation or necrosis¹³. Effective management therefore hinges on a thorough assessment of clinical and laboratory parameters, such as reduction in local edema, absence of purulent discharge, and downward trends in inflammatory markers, ensuring infection has been adequately controlled before definitive coverage is attempted¹³. The integration of temporary measures—such as negative pressure wound therapy or biologic dressings—can further optimize the wound environment, allowing time for infection resolution while still protecting the underlying tissues^12,13. Thus, a coordinated approach that prioritizes infection eradication, supported by vigilant monitoring and timely reconstruction, is essential to minimize complications and improve functional and aesthetic outcomes, underscoring the need for multidisciplinary collaboration and strict adherence to established clinical pathways¹³.

What are the functional outcomes associated with various coverage techniques?

Building upon the importance of accurate diagnosis and timely intervention in soft tissue injuries, the choice of coverage technique—whether skin grafts, local flaps, or free tissue transfers—directly impacts the functional outcomes for patients. Functional outcome measures, such as those used in physical therapy, provide quantifiable data on a patient’s improvement throughout the continuum of care, allowing clinicians to objectively assess the effectiveness of each coverage method and tailor rehabilitation protocols accordingly¹⁴. For instance, long-term postoperative evaluations not only assess health-related quality of life but also consider scar quality and aesthetic outcomes, both of which are intertwined with the restoration of mobility and independence in daily activities¹⁵. Furthermore, the use of standardized outcome assessments enables the comparison of functional results across patient populations and coverage techniques, facilitating evidence-based decisions and optimizing patient recovery¹⁶. These interconnections highlight the necessity for multidisciplinary collaboration and standardized evaluation tools to ensure that the chosen coverage technique maximizes both functional and aesthetic recovery, ultimately improving the quality of life for patients with complex soft tissue injuries. Therefore, it is imperative for healthcare systems and policymakers to advocate for comprehensive functional outcome monitoring and equitable access to advanced coverage procedures, ensuring optimal recovery trajectories for all patients.

How do complications of soft tissue reconstruction influence long-term limb preservation?

The complications arising from soft tissue reconstruction present multifaceted challenges that significantly influence the prospects of long-term limb preservation, particularly in patients with lower extremity defects who often carry substantial comorbidities affecting postoperative healing¹⁷. These complications are not merely limited to localized wound issues, rather, they create a cascade of clinical, functional, and socioeconomic consequences that are deeply interconnected. For instance, the relatively high rate of postoperative complications following distal lower extremity reconstruction—such as infection, wound dehiscence, and graft failure—can directly undermine limb salvage efforts, despite technological advances in microsurgery and skeletal stabilization^17,18. The frequent need for additional surgeries and the extended duration of physical therapy that often follow such complications further amplify the risk of limb loss and impair overall functional recovery¹⁸. Moreover, the resulting physical disabilities, compounded by mental stress and financial burdens, can profoundly diminish the quality of life for patients, highlighting the far-reaching impact of these complications beyond the immediate clinical outcomes¹⁸. Therefore, it is imperative to approach soft tissue reconstruction with a comprehensive strategy—carefully selecting reconstructive methods based on individual patient risk factors and functional goals—to mitigate these complications and improve long-term limb preservation rates¹⁷. This underscores the urgent need for multidisciplinary interventions, rigorous preoperative assessment, and ongoing postoperative support to optimize recovery and sustain limb viability.

DISCUSSION

The comprehensive assessment of soft tissue coverage in extremity injury management, as delineated in this review, underscores the pivotal role of advanced imaging modalities and individualized treatment strategies in optimizing patient outcomes. The utilization of MRI and ultrasound, complemented by emerging technologies such as shear-wave elastography and 3D imaging software, demonstrates significant potential in accurately characterizing soft tissue damage, guiding reconstructive decisions, and tailoring interventions to patient-specific needs. The emphasis on multimodal vascular assessment, primarily through CTA and Doppler ultrasound, highlights the importance of timely and precise vascular evaluation in preventing limb-threatening complications. The decision-making process between primary closure, local flaps, and microsurgical techniques is complex and influenced by various factors, including wound size, tissue viability, infection status, and patient comorbidities such as diabetes and vascular disease. This underscores the necessity for a multidisciplinary approach and standardized protocols to ensure optimal outcomes. The review also elucidates the critical importance of early intervention in soft tissue coverage, as delayed procedures significantly increase risks of necrosis, infection, and subsequent limb loss. Nonetheless, while the integration of advanced diagnostic tools and surgical techniques shows promise, the review reveals certain limitations, including variability in imaging availability, surgeon expertise, and patient-specific factors that can influence outcomes. Moreover, the heterogeneity of clinical cases poses challenges in establishing universally applicable protocols. Future research should focus on longitudinal studies evaluating long-term functional and aesthetic outcomes, as well as the development of standardized guidelines for the timing and selection of reconstructive techniques. Additionally, exploring novel biomaterials and tissue engineering approaches may further enhance soft tissue regeneration and coverage. Overall, the findings emphasize that successful management of extremity soft tissue injuries hinges on precise diagnostics, personalized reconstructive strategies, and vigilant complication management, reaffirming the need for continuous technological advancements and collaborative efforts in this complex field.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Adequate assessment of soft tissue coverage is a critical determinant of outcomes in extremity injury management. Contemporary evidence shows that early, well-planned coverage—integrated with stable skeletal fixation and meticulous debridement—reduces the risk of infection, non-union, and flap failure, while improving limb salvage and functional recovery. The orthoplastic approach, based on close collaboration between orthopaedic and plastic surgeons, has emerged as a cornerstone of care for complex extremity trauma, particularly in Gustilo IIIB and IIIC fractures and in high-energy soft tissue defects of the lower limb.
2. Selection of the most appropriate coverage technique—ranging from skin grafts and local or regional flaps to microsurgical free tissue transfer—must be individualized according to defect size and location, quality of surrounding tissue, vascular status, patient comorbidities, and functional demands of the limb. No single flap or technique has demonstrated universal superiority, rather, optimal outcomes are associated with adherence to reconstructive principles, timely coverage (ideally within the first week in severe open fractures), and multidisciplinary decision-making.
3. Overall, this review highlights that systematic assessment of soft tissue coverage needs is not merely reconstructive, but decisively influences infection control, limb preservation, rehabilitation trajectories, and long-term quality of life for patients with extremity injuries. Future research should focus on standardized assessment tools, risk-stratified algorithms for flap selection, and high-quality comparative studies evaluating local versus free flaps and the role of adjunctive technologies such as negative pressure wound therapy in complex extremity reconstruction.

BIBLIOGRAFÍA

1. Buljubasich M, De Cicco F. Soft Tissue Injuries. Orthopaedics and Trauma [Internet]. 2024 Jan 1 [cited 2024 Nov 21],1(1):27–37. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30518-4_4
2. Injury 2 Wellness Centers. Revolutionizing Injury Diagnosis: Advanced Chiropractic Tools Explained [Internet]. Injury 2 Wellness Centers. 2025 [cited 2024 Nov 23]. Available from: https://injury2wellness.com/revolutionizing-injury-diagnosis-advanced-chiropractic-tools-explained/
3. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. Using ultrasound to diagnose sports injuries and joint pain is faster and less expensive | Orthopaedics and Rehab | UT Southwestern Medical Center [Internet]. utswmed.org. 2022 [cited 2024 Nov 23]. Available from: https://utswmed.org/medblog/using-ultrasound-diagnose-sports-injuries-and-joint-pain-faster-and-less-expensive/
4. Spinnato P, Patel DB, Di Carlo M, Bartoloni A, Cevolani L, Matcuk GR, et al. Imaging of Musculoskeletal Soft-Tissue Infections in Clinical Practice: A Comprehensive Updated Review. Imaging of Musculoskeletal Soft-Tissue Infections in Clinical Practice: A Comprehensive Updated Review [Internet]. 2022 Nov 25 [cited 2024 Nov 23],10(12):2329–9. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9784663/
5. Arda K, Ciledag N, Aktas E, Arıbas BK, Köse K. Quantitative Assessment of Normal Soft-Tissue Elasticity Using Shear-Wave Ultrasound Elastography. American Journal of Roentgenology [Internet]. 2011 Sep [cited 2024 Nov 23],197(3):532–6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.10.5449
6. Yoo G, Kim SR, Kim JW, Lee JY. Surgeon-Generated Reconstructed Three-Dimensional Tomography Images Improve Surgical Outcomes on Deep Soft Tissue Lesions. Journal of Wound Management and Research [Internet]. 2024 Feb 28 [cited 2024 Nov 23],20(1):17–28. Available from: https://doi.org/10.22467/jwmr.2023.02852
7. Khurana A, Quencer K, Saini A, Sill A, Albadawi H, Jamal L, et al. Endovascular interventions in the management of acute extremity trauma: a narrative review. Annals of translational medicine [Internet]. 2021 Jul 1 [cited 2024 Jul 31],9(14):1197–7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-5428
8. Sandstrom CK. An Emergency Radiologist’s Perspective on Traumatic Vascular Injuries [Internet]. Arrs.org. 2025 [cited 2024 Nov 23]. Available from: https://www.arrs.org/ARRSLIVE/ARRSLIVE/Education/InPractice/Spring_2020/traumatic-vascular-injuries-emergency-radiology.aspx
9. Brenneis M, Flevas DA, Gayle LB, Boettner F, Sculco PK, Westrich GH. Complex periprosthetic wound coverage in patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty: a single plastic surgeon study. Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery [Internet]. 2024 Apr 25 [cited 2024 Jul 4],1(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-024-05240-6
10. Nordback PH, Hakkarainen M, Mattila S. A treatment algorithm for reconstruction of soft tissue defects in the hand: a narrative review. Annals of Translational Medicine [Internet]. 2023 Oct 25 [cited 2024 Nov 23],11(11):390–0. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-23-201
11. Hernekamp JF, Leibig N, Cordts T, Kremer T, Kneser U. Revisionary soft tissue reconstruction of posterior midline defects after spinal surgery—plastic reconstructive options including perforator flaps. Journal of Spine Surgery [Internet]. 2021 Jul 14 [cited 2024 Nov 23],7(3):364–75. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21037/jss-20-688
12. Tedesco S, Di Grezia M, Tropeano G, Altieri G, Brisinda G. Necrotizing soft tissue infections: a surgical narrative review. Updates in Surgery [Internet]. 2025 Apr 28 [cited 2024 Nov 23],1(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-025-02222-0
13. Artiaco S, Limone B, Vezza D, Bosco F, Giustra F, Colzani G. Treatment of infected soft tissue loss. Plastic and Aesthetic Research [Internet]. 2023 Sep 13 [cited 2024 Nov 23],1(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.20517/2347-9264.2022.145
14. MerlinWave. PT Assessment Tools & Functional Outcome Measures | Empower EMR [Internet]. www.empoweremr.com. 2022 [cited 2024 Nov 23]. Available from: https://www.empoweremr.com/blog/pt-assessment-tools-functional-outcome-measures
15. Pfeifenberger S, Hecker A, Watzinger N, Moshammer M, Pignet AL, Draschl A, et al. Long-Term Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life After Microvascular Reconstruction of Ankle and Foot Defects: A Monocentric Controlled Cohort Study. Life [Internet]. 2025 May 13 [cited 2025 Oct 7],15(5):775. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/15/5/775
16. Wiffen J, Mah E. Determining functional outcomes after resection and reconstruction of primary soft tissue sarcoma in the lower extremity: A review of current subjective and objective measurement systems. Journal of Surgical Oncology [Internet]. 2023 Jan 22 [cited 2024 Feb 7],127(5):862–70. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.27202
17. Györi E, Fast A, Resch A, Rath T, Radtke C. Reconstruction of traumatic and non-traumatic lower extremity defects with local or free flaps. European Surgery [Internet]. 2021 Apr 22 [cited 2022 Aug 10],54(1):44–9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10353-021-00704-0
18. Brogan B, Colen DL. The evolution of lower extremity reconstruction. Plastic and Aesthetic Research [Internet]. 2022 Jan 1 [cited 2024 Nov 23],9(1):34–4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.20517/2347-9264.2021.134