• 1. Department of Plastic Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou Jiangsu, 215004, P. R. China;
  • 2. Department of Plastic and Maxillofacial Surgery, Necker Children Hospital of Paris;
ZHAOTianlan, Email: ztl1965@163.com
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of double pedicled flap and technique of geometric broken line (GBL) for primary repair of serious dog bite wound. Methods Between October 2006 and December 2014, 9 patients with serious dog bite wound were treated. There were 3 males and 6 females with an average age of 34.5 years (range, 8-68 years), and with a mean disease duration of 4 hours (range, 30 minutes to 24 hours). The defect ranged from 1.7 cm×0.5 cm to 15.0 cm×8.0 cm, with the mean depth of 0.5 cm (range, 0.3-0.8 cm). Deep tissue exposure was observed. After routine debridement, a vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) was equipped to suck and irrigate for 1 day, then wound was repaired. The superomedial edge of defect was trimmed, then a GBL shape mainly with square and rectangular was designed. According to defect size, a double pedicled flap was designed at the lateroinferior edge of defect, which size ranged from 1.7 cm×1.5 cm to 18.0 cm×15.0 cm. The donor site was sutured directly. VSD was used for 3 days after operation. Results All flaps survived and wound healed, and donor site incision healed well, with invisible scar. All patients were followed up 6 months to 8 years (mean, 4 years). The wounds were repaired well, and the patients had good facial appearance. No rabies attack was observed during follow-up. Conclusion It is an ideal repair method to chose double pedicled flap and technique of GBL for primary repair of dog bite wounds. Satisfactory cosmetic appearance can be obtained.

Citation: YUDaojiang, ZHAOTianlan, AnneMORICE, WULijun, SUNWei, YUWenyuan, LIXiujie, WANGShuai, WANGRui. APPLICATION OF DOUBLE PEDICLED FLAP AND TECHNIQUE OF GEOMETRIC BROKEN LINE FOR PRIMARY REPAIR OF SERIOUS DOG BITE WOUNDS. Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, 2016, 30(8): 926-929. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.20160187 Copy

  • Previous Article

  • Next Article

    CLINICAL EFFICACY OF MODIFIED POLYTETRAFLUOROETHYLENE PROSTHESIS RHINOPLASTY