The Plastic Surgeon Guide
All chapters › Volume 4: Breast, Trunk, Lower Limb & Aesthetics › Lower Limb

Open Lower Limb Trauma & the BOAST/ BAPRAS Standards

Free sample chapter from Volume 4, Breast, Trunk, Lower Limb & Aesthetics. This is one of 143 chapters.

Read every answer

143 chapters and 1,186 viva questions with model answers, written for the FRCS (Plast). £149 a year.

SubscribeBrowse free sample chapters →

Core notes

Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Open Tibial Fractures

  • Speed matters → strongest evidence is for administration within 3 h (preferably <1 h) of injury
  • Continue only as long as needed → overuse increases resistance & C. difficile risk.
  • For contaminated farm injuries, some centres add metronidazole (for anaerobic cover).
  • If closure delayed >72 h → stop prophylaxis; restart perioperatively at closure.

Recommended Protocol (UK practice)

StageDrug RegimenNotes
Immediately post-injuryCo-amoxiclav 1.2 g IV 8-hourly OR Cefuroxime 1.5 g IV 8-hourlyStart ASAP, continue until first debridement
First debridementCo-amoxiclav / Cefuroxime + Gentamicin 1.5 mg/kg IVContinue co-amoxiclav/cefuroxime until definitive closure or max 72 h
Definitive skeletal fixation + soft tissue closureGentamicin 1.5 mg/kg IV + Vancomycin 1 g IV (start ≥90 min before) or Teicoplanin 800 mg IVSingle perioperative dose only, no postoperative continuation
Penicillin anaphylaxisClindamycin 600 mg IV 6-hourly instead of co-amoxiclav/cephalosporinCefuroxime acceptable if allergy is mild (non-anaphylactic)

Duration by Gustilo Grade

  • Grade I: 24–48 h perioperative cover only.
  • Grade II: 48 h perioperative cover.
  • Grade III: Until definitive soft tissue closure or max 72 h after injury — whichever comes first.

Timing of Wound Excision

  • Immediate surgery only if
    • Gross contamination (e.g., farm, sewage, marine)
    • Compartment syndrome
    • De vascularised limb
    • Polytrauma / multiply injured patient
  • Otherwise
    • Formal wound & bone excision by senior orthopaedic + plastic surgeons
    • On scheduled trauma list within 24 h of injury
    • 6-hour rule does not apply to isolated open fractures without the above urgent features

The “6-hour Rule”

  • Historical dogma: Debride within 6 h to reduce infection risk.
  • No significant infection rate difference if debridement done up to 24 h, provided antibiotics are given early

Key Studies :

  • Harley et al — No increase in deep infection/non-union up to 13 h.
  • Patzakis & Wilkins — Delay >12 h did not raise infection risk; antibiotic timing was more important.
  • Ashford et al — Infection rate actually lower with delays between 6–37 h.
  • LEAP study — No difference in infection, union, or functional outcomes for debridement up to 24 h.
  • Crowley et al — Recommend timing be based on earliest opportunity when experienced ortho + plastics team are available.

Rationale for Delayed (but Planned) Surgery

  • Night-time surgery risks → reduced consultant input, fatigue, limited resources.
  • Early antibiotics and wound sealing in ED stabilise bacterial load until formal debridement.
  • Better outcomes when first debridement is thorough and performed by experienced combined teams.

Practical Protocol

  • In ED:
    • Antibiotics + tetanus
    • Remove gross contaminants, photograph, seal wound
    • Splintage & NV checks
  • In theatre:
    • Semi-elective trauma list <24 h
    • Combined ortho–plastics presence
    • Meticulous excision of devitalised tissue & fracture stabilisation
  • Urgent (<6 h): Only for contamination, ischaemia, compartment syndrome, or polytrauma

Guidelines on Wound Debridement (Excision) in Open Lower Limb Fracture

  • Early accurate debridement most important surgical step in preventing infection
  • Debridement excision of all devitalised tissue (skin, fat, muscle, bone) except neurovascular bundles

Surgical Sequence

A. Preparation

  • Social wash: Before theatre, wash limb with soap solution + soft brush to remove surface debris.
  • Transfer to OR and prep entire limb with alcoholic chlorhexidine
  • Tourniquet
    • Inflate for bloodless field if extensive degloving or distorted anatomy (neurovascular at risk).
    • Leave deflated if soft tissue largely intact — bleeding helps assess viability

B. Wound Approach

  • Generous wound extension along fasciotomy lines for exposure
  • Identify & protect neurovascular bundles early
  • Work superficial → deep and periphery → centre
  • Skin: Preserve as much as possible; excise non-viable tissue. Watch for degloving.
  • Subcutaneous fat: Excise devitalised fat — often greater damage than skin zone.
  • Muscle: Assess with 4 C’s:
    • Colour (pink, not blue)
    • Consistency (firm, not friable)
    • Contractility (twitches to stimulation)
    • Capacity to bleed
  • Bone: Excise grossly contaminated, loose fragments with no soft tissue attachments. Preserve viable cortical fragments

C. Zone of Injury

  • Damage often extends beyond visible wound edges.
  • Plan flaps and anastomoses outside zone of injury to maximise vascular reliability.

D. Post-Debridement

  • Classify fracture (Gustilo)
  • Plan reconstruction jointly with plastics + ortho senior team.
  • If single-stage fixation + cover not possible
    • Apply VAC dressing
    • Antibiotic bead pouch if segmental bone loss

Practical Pearls

  • Avoid antiseptic in open wound during prep — cytotoxic risk.
  • Protect perforators outside injury zone if considering local flap.
  • Inspect posterior muscle compartments — devitalised muscle can be hidden behind tibia or in medullary canal.
  • Minimise repeat returns to theatre — single, meticulous debridement is gold standard.

Why Avoid Antiseptic in an Open Wound During Prep?

  • Alcoholic chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine are toxic to fibroblasts, endothelial cells, and myocytes
  • Delay granulation impair angiogenesis, and compromise any planned flap/graft take
  • Endothelial injury from antiseptic contact impairs capillary ingrowth and wound healing
  • In contaminated wounds increase infection risk because viable tissue is weakened.
  • Prep the intact skin around the wound with antiseptic solution (alcoholic chlorhexidine preferred)
  • Avoid direct contact with exposed muscle, bone, or neurovascular structures
  • If skin prep runs into wound → irrigate with sterile saline immediately to minimise contact time
  • For wound cleansing, sterile saline
  • Certain rare high-contamination scenarios (marine water, heavy organic contamination) may prompt selective antiseptic use, but this is not routine and usually applied after viability assessment, not before

Bone Exposure, Decontamination, and Preservation

  • Bone viability is judged after tourniquet release by capacity to bleed (“paprika sign”), not by appearance alone
  • Lavage is never a substitute for sharp debridement — it is the final step once the wound is clean.

Surgical Sequence

A. Exposure

  1. Extend the traumatic wound to the nearest fasciotomy incision (preserves fasciocutaneous perforators for possible flap coverage).
  2. Deliver fracture ends through the wound extension for full circumferential assessment.
    • This does not cause new damage if done carefully — most periosteal stripping occurs during the injury
  3. Preserve neurovascular structures and remaining periosteum wherever possible.

B. Bone Viability Assessment

  • Paprika sign = punctate cortical bleeding after tourniquet release → viable.
  • Differentiate true cortical bleeding from medullary ooze in stripped bone ends.
  • Factors to consider:
    • Soft tissue attachments
    • Quality of periosteal sleeve
    • Extent of stripping
  • Tourniquet:
    • Inflated for soft tissue dissection if needed
    • Deflate before bone assessment to check bleeding

C. Removal Criteria

  • Loose fragments failing the tug test → remove.
  • Larger fragments:
    • Remove if no bleeding and no viable attachment.
    • Exception: Major articular fragments if they can be reduced and fixed absolutely stable — otherwise remove
  • Never treat necrotic bone as “free graft” — it’s a nidus for infection

D. Decontamination Technique

  • Use forceps, curettes, scrubbing brush, or bone nibblers to remove embedded debris.
  • Work zone-by-zone, periodically irrigating to maintain visibility
  • Inspect posterior compartments and medullary canal for lodged fragments

E. Lavage

  • Start only when wound appears clean
  • Low-pressure (<14 psi), large-volume warm saline
  • Avoid high-pressure pulsatile lavage — shown to drive bacteria deeper into bone/soft tissue

Classification of Open Fractures

Gustilo–Anderson (G&A)

Byrd & Spicer

  • Based on bone vascularity and need for flap:
    • Type I–II: Circulation preserved (endo/periosteal)
    • Type III: Devitalised bone, flap needed
    • Type IV: Requires free flap
  • Rarely used; oversimplified.

Scoring Systems — Include limb and patient factors, often aimed at amputation prediction

1. Mangled Extremity Severity Score (MESS)

  • Considers skeletal/soft tissue damage, ischaemia, shock, and age.
  • Score ≥7 → high likelihood of amputation.
  • Specific but not sensitive — can over-predict amputation.

2. Nisssa

  • Nerve injury, Ischaemia, Soft tissue injury, Skeletal injury, Shock, Age.
  • More sensitive and specific than MESS.

3. Limb Salvage Index (LSI)

  • Designed for limbs with arterial compromise.
  • Scores skin, nerve, muscle, bone, artery, veins + warm ischaemia time.
  • ≥6 → amputation likely.
  • Never classify before debridement — contamination and tissue loss are often underestimated in ED.
  • Use G&A for immediate communication post-excision; supplement with AO for audit.

Q: Why should Gustilo grading only be applied after debridement?
A: Injury severity is often underestimated pre-debridement; interobserver reliability improves after full inspection.

Q: Which score is most sensitive for amputation prediction?
A: NISSSA — more sensitive and specific than MESS.

Q: What’s the main advantage of AO classification?
A: Separates injury grading for different tissues; more comprehensive prognostically.

Q: In which setting is Ganga Hospital Score most useful?
A: In tertiary orthoplastic units — combines injury severity with comorbidity impact to predict reconstruction/amputation needs

Temporary Wound Dressings

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT)

  • Mechanism: Foam + subatmospheric pressure (-125 mmHg) under an occlusive drape.
  • Benefits:
    • Reduces fluid pooling
    • Prevents cortical bone desiccation
    • Maintains moist wound environment
  • Limitations:
    • Does not decontaminate wounds — requires proper surgical excision first.
    • Delays in soft tissue cover >7 days, even with NPWT, ↑ deep infection risk.

Antibiotic Bead Pouches

  • Technique: Tobramycin-impregnated PMMA cement beads placed in wound cavity, covered with semipermeable membrane.
  • Indications:
    • Segmental bone loss
    • Heavy contamination
    • Established infection
  • Evidence:
    • Multiple series show ↓ infection and osteomyelitis rates in grade III fractures when added to systemic antibiotics
  • Advantages:
    • High local antibiotic delivery without systemic toxicity.
    • Can fill dead space temporarily before staged bone reconstruction.

Techniques for Skeletal Stabilization in Open Tibial Fractures

  • Spanning external fixation = default if definitive fixation + immediate cover not possible at primary debridement
  • Internal fixation is safe if
    • Minimal contamination
    • Soft tissue cover achieved simultaneously
  • Early exchange from spanning external fixation → internal fixation is preferred
  • Modern multiplanar/circular fixators for
    • Significant contamination
    • Bone loss
    • Multilevel fractures

Provisional Stabilization

  • Why?
    • Stabilises fracture
    • Facilitates soft tissue healing
    • Allows damage-control orthopaedics principles
  • Avoid:
    • Traction
    • Long leg plaster slabs
  • Preferred:
    • Stable spanning external fixation
    • Must be applied to allow access for flap surgery
  • Safe pin corridors (by tibial segment):
    • Segment 1 (proximal third): Oblique to avoid posterior tibial NV bundle
    • Segment 2 (middle third): AP screws safe; avoid over-penetration
    • Segment 3 (distal third): AP screws via TA–EHL interval; beware tethering skin if distally-based flap may be needed

3. Definitive Stabilization – Choice Factors

FactorBest Option
Diaphyseal, minimal bone lossLocked intramedullary nail
Articular fracturePlate fixation
Significant bone loss / complex multilevel / metaphyseal dissociationCircular external fixator
Heavy contaminationExternal fixation
Bone transport neededCircular external fixator
Small wedge lossInternal or external fixation + delayed graft

4. Timing & Sequence

  • If using internal fixation:
    • Must have simultaneous definitive soft tissue cover
    • Delayed cover over implant = ↑ infection risk
  • Safe exchange window:
    • Ideally within 72h at second-look debridement
    • Must include soft tissue cover at same time
    • If >72h missed → consider definitive multiplanar/circular external fixation
  • Risk: Pin tract infection → intramedullary contamination if conversion delayed

Timing of Soft Tissue Reconstruction in Open Fractures

  • Timing goal: Within 7 days (before vessels become friable/fibrotic)
  • 5-day rule: Little scientific basis — real principle is “as early as safely possible”, ideally before day 7

Why Early Coverage Matters

  • Reduces:
    • Deep infection
    • Flap failure
    • Osteomyelitis
    • Non-union
    • Number of secondary operations
  • Facilitates:
    • Early rehabilitation
    • Shorter hospital stay
    • Single definitive surgery (fix & flap)

Type of Soft Tissue Reconstruction in Open Tibial Fractures

  • All open fractures → cover with vascularised soft tissue (muscle or fasciocutaneous)
  • NPWT / foam dressings = temporary only — not a substitute for definitive flap cover
  • Local fasciocutaneous flaps → suitable for low-energy tibial fractures, if vascularity intact and outside the primary zone of injury/degloving
  • Tibial shaft (diaphyseal) fractures with periosteal stripping → muscle flaps preferred
  • Metaphyseal / peri-ankle fractures → fasciocutaneous flaps often optimal (including free perforator flaps).

Muscle vs Fasciocutaneous

Muscle Flaps

  • Advantages:
    • Obliterate dead space → ↓ haematoma/seroma → ↓ infection risk.
    • High vascularity → enhances bacterial clearance.
    • Conform to irregular defects.
    • Strong biological contribution to fracture healing (cellular & humoral factors).
  • Limitations: Donor site morbidity, contour deficit, less aesthetic resurfacing, difficult re-exploration.

Fasciocutaneous Flaps

  • Advantages:
    • Replace “like with like” (skin over skin).
    • Simpler harvest (especially local options).
    • Better contour/aesthetics, especially around joints/ankle.
    • Easier re-exploration for secondary bone grafting.
    • Good option in medically complex patients unsuitable for long microsurgical procedures.
  • Limitations:
    • Higher necrosis rate in comorbid patients
    • May be less effective in bacterial clearance compared to muscle
Injury type / locationPreferred flapRationale
Diaphyseal tibia + periosteal strippingMuscle (local/free)Biological enhancement, dead space obliteration
Metaphyseal / ankle /footFasciocutaneous (local/free)Contour, thin pliable cover, aesthetic
Chronic infection with minimal dead spaceFasciocutaneous (perforator)Easy re-exploration, donor site closure
Large degloving / severe contaminationFree muscle (± chimaeric)Vascularity + ability to fill irregular defect
Elderly / diabetic / PVDExperienced microsurgical centre decision — often free perforator flap over local FC flap due to reliability concerns

Compartment Syndrome

  • Earliest symptoms:
    • Pain out of proportion to injury, ↑ on passive stretch of compartment-specific muscles.
    • Paraesthesia in sensory nerve distribution of affected compartment.
  • Late signs: paralysis, pallor — indicate established ischaemia (poor prognostic signs).
  • Peripheral pulses: Usually preserved — loss suggests major vascular injury, not compartment syndrome.

Compartment Pressure Measurement

  • ΔP method:
    • ΔP = Diastolic BP – ICP
    • ΔP ≤ 30 mmHg

Surgical Decompression — Two-incision

  • Purpose: Access all four compartments; preserve skin perforators for future local flaps.
  • Incisions:
    • Medial: 1–2 cm posterior to medial tibial border; decompress superficial & deep posterior compartments; avoid posterior tibial perforators (10 cm perforator most reliable).
    • Lateral: 2 cm lateral to anterior tibial border; decompress anterior & peroneal compartments; divide peroneal septum
  • Skin closure
    • High complication rates with primary closure if swelling persists.
    • If non-viable tissue excised: consider immediate meshed SSG + NPWT.
    • Alternatively, NPWT temporarily until swelling subsides → delayed closure or grafting.
  • Scar revision can be performed later for cosmesis

Late Diagnosis Dilemma

  • After irreversible necrosis, fasciotomy may
    • ↑ infection risk.
    • Necessitate compartmentectomy or amputation.
  • If >35 h post-injury → high risk of severe infection/death.
  • Supportive care: IV fluids, electrolyte correction for rhabdomyolysis.

Vascular Injuries in Limb Trauma

  • Warm ischaemia thresholds
    • Aim: Restore circulation within 3–4 h (muscle death begins thereafter).
    • Max: 6 h warm ischaemia before irreversible damage is expected.
  • Don’t be reassured by normal-appearing toe cap refill — may be misleading due to venous backflow
  • Always suspect major vascular injury with absent pulses — do not attribute to spasm or compartment syndrome without senior review

Immediate Action — No Delays for Imaging

  • Pre-op angiography in a clearly devascularized limb wastes time — site of injury often predictable from fracture/dislocation pattern
  • If location uncertain: On-table angiogram via groin femoral puncture can help (fast, intra-op).

Damage Control Vascular Surgery

  • Shunts (carotid Javid / Pruitt) → rapidly restore flow → ↓ ischaemia time, ↓ fasciotomy rate.
  • Shunt both artery and vein (proximal to trifurcation) if injured
  • Order of priorities (in unstable limb):
    1. Rapid shunt insertion (artery ± vein).
    2. Assess limb viability
    3. Skeletal stabilization (simple bridging external fixator).
    4. Definitive repair (reversed vein graft — cephalic often better than saphenous)
  • Tip: Don’t cross-clamp for graft insertion until limb has been reperfused for ≥ 2 h.
  • Cephalic vein advantages over saphenous
    1. Thinner wall, less muscular → less spasm
    2. Dilates more easily for higher flow
    3. Often unaffected in leg trauma

Venous Repair

  • Above trifurcation → repair veins as well as arteries.
  • Patency rates high proximally (femoral/popliteal) but poor distally.
  • Venous repair reduces swelling, infection risk, and improves fracture healing.

Fasciotomy Considerations

  • Reperfusion injury → swelling may develop hours later → repeat ICP checks.
  • Use ΔP (DBP – ICP ≤ 30 mmHg) threshold.
  • Liberal fasciotomy after revascularization.

Single Vessel Run-off

  • Common after peroneal/anterior tibial injury
  • Not a contraindication to free flap if end-to-side anastomosis feasible and flow adequate.
  • Consider vessel reconstruction, esp. posterior tibial artery.

a. Intravascular shunt first (Javid, Pruitt-Inahara, or improvised with sterile tubing) — restore arterial inflow within the ischaemia window (ideally <3–4 hours, certainly <6). Shunt the vein too if injured proximal to the trifurcation, to reduce venous hypertension and improve flap survival later.

b. Reassess limb viability with flow restored — MESS score, soft tissue envelope, bone loss, nerve status. This is the decision point for limb salvage vs primary amputation.

c. Skeletal stabilisation — bridging external fixator across the zone of injury. Quick, gets length and alignment, protects the shunt and soft tissues, allows access for the plastic surgeon. Definitive internal fixation comes later.

d. Wound debridement — radical excision of all devitalised tissue (skin, fat, fascia, muscle, bone). Pulsatile lavage. The “4 Cs” for muscle viability (colour, contractility, consistency, capillary bleeding). This is where the orthoplastic principle bites — debride as if you’re going to close immediately, because contamination left behind becomes osteomyelitis.

e. Definitive vascular repair — reversed vein graft, with contralateral long saphenous vein as workhorse; cephalic vein from the upper limb is often a better calibre match for tibial vessels and avoids ipsilateral limb dissection. Avoid using vein from the injured limb if there’s any concern about deep venous outflow.

f. Fasciotomies — low threshold, four-compartment in the leg. Mandatory if ischaemia time >4–6 hours, combined arterial and venous injury, prolonged hypotension, or any clinical suspicion. Don’t wait for compartment syndrome to declare itself in this group.

g. Soft tissue cover plan — if the plastic surgeon is in theatre, definitive cover (local flap, free flap) at the same sitting is ideal (“fix and flap”), provided physiology permits. Otherwise, NPWT dressing and return within 72 hours per BOAST-4.

Open Fractures of the Foot and Ankle

  • Limited local flap options for coverage.
  • Frequent neurovascular injury.
  • Intra-articular fractures → high risk of long-term stiffness & poor function.
  • Difficulties in stable fixation due to limited anchor points.

Salvage vs Amputation

  • Consider amputation if functional outcome after reconstruction will likely be worse than a transtibial prosthesis
  • High-risk patterns for poor salvage:
    • Floating ankle (distal tibia + hindfoot fracture-dislocation).
    • Severe crush with open midfoot/forefoot injuries → stiff, painful foot even after reconstruction.

Acute Management Principles

Damage control orthoplastics approach:

  1. Spanning external fixator first:
    • Maintains length & alignment.
    • Facilitates imaging & soft tissue recovery.
    • Avoid fibular plating in the acute phase (unless ORIF of fibula at primary surgery will clearly help length & alignment in pilon fractures).
    • If fixation pins in metatarsals are not possible → suspend foot from tibia + os calcis frame.
  2. Definitive fixation at time of definitive soft tissue cover:
  3. Flap choice:
    • Plantar: Fasciocutaneous flaps preferred; reinnervation may ↓ ulcer risk.
    • Dorsal: Skin graft or thin fasciocutaneous flap.
  4. Nerve/Vessel injuries:
    • Assess posterior tibial nerve (plantar sensation).
    • For posterior tibial artery injury: consider autologous vein graft.
    • Avoid end-to-end anastomosis across intimal injury zones.

Posterior Tibial Nerve Assessment

  • The posterior tibial nerve supplies motor to intrinsic foot muscles and sensory to plantar surface (weight-bearing area).
  • Loss of plantar sensation affects gait, balance, ulcer risk
  • Absent plantar sensation at presentation is not an absolute indication for amputation.
    • If nerve is in continuity → expectant repair.
    • If transected + massive muscle loss/posterior compartment loss + warm ischaemia >4–6 h → poor prognosis

Posterior Tibial Artery Injury

  • Why repair
    • Main supply to plantar arch (especially in diabetics/single-vessel runoff).
    • Loss risks plantar ischaemia, flap failure (especially plantar flaps).
  • Preferred method: Autologous vein graft (reversed saphenous or cephalic vein).
  • When not to repair
    • If there is proven collateral flow and the limb has adequate perfusion and there are higher surgical priorities (damage control)
    • But in reconstructive planning, posterior tibial flow is critical for plantar flap survival.

Avoiding End-to-End Anastomosis Across Intimal Injury Zones

  • Risk of thrombosis — disrupted endothelium is thrombogenic
  • Risk of anastomotic failure — suture line placed in diseased segment → poor healing, early occlusion
  • Underestimation of injury length — intimal disruption can extend several cm proximal/distal to the apparent injury
  • Best practice:
    • Resect back to macroscopically & Doppler-confirmed healthy vessel.
    • Then interpose a vein graft to bridge the gap.
    • Avoid tension — arterial repairs under stretch are more likely to fail.

Degloved plantar skin

  • Suprafascial → Defat + replace as full-thickness graft.
  • Proximally based subfascial → Suture back without tension.
  • Distally based subfascial → Consider microvascular revascularisation.

Pattern-Specific Notes

Open pilon fractures

  • Span with ex-fix acutely.
  • If ORIF of tibial plafond planned → primary fibular fixation can help maintain length.
  • Soft tissue cover: thin, pliable fasciocutaneous flaps.

Open talus/calcaneus fractures

  • Often medial soft tissue defect; consider medial plantar island flap for small heel defects.
  • Extensive → thin fasciocutaneous free flaps (reinnervated if possible).
  • High infection risk with ORIF; delay definitive fixation until soft tissues optimal.
  • Extruded talus → reimplantation only if low contamination & bone viable.

Open midfoot

  • Often crush injuries → high long-term stiffness & pain.
  • External fixation + skin graft/flap acutely; consider amputation if function predicted to be poor.

Open metatarsals

  • Single fracture → follow general open fracture principles.
  • Multiple/crush → soft tissue takes priority; high risk of needing ray amputation.

When Things Go Wrong with Soft Tissues

Local Flap Complications

Tip Necrosis

  • Most vulnerable zone = tip (least vascularised).
  • Management
    • Return to theatre early (usually within 72 h of signs).
    • Excise necrotic tip → advance flap or consider new flap/free flap.

Delayed Anastomotic Failure

  • Most arterial thromboses: first 24 h.
  • Most venous problems: after 24 h (3× more common than arterial)

Deep Infection After Coverage

  • Often related to underlying fracture/fixation.
  • Management:
    • Elevate flap, explore fracture site.
    • Remove non-essential deep metalwork.
    • Deep tissue/bone samples for MCS/histology.
    • Debride to a wound bed as healthy as primary excision.
    • Temporary antibiotic bead pouch → delayed reconstruction

When Things Go Wrong with Bone

Early bone problems = wound leakage, sepsis, loss of alignment.

  • Common causes:
    1. Inadequate debridement.
    2. Haematoma formation.
    3. Delayed/inappropriate soft tissue cover.
    4. Unstable or inappropriate fixation.

1. Wound Leakage

  • Pathophysiology: failure of primary healing; most often due to haematoma in dead space.
  • Risks:
    • Under flap: increases flap necrosis risk.
    • Infection nidus.
  • Management
    • Small & localised → antibiotics + close observation
    • No resolution within days → return to theatre for evacuation ± drainage.
    • Prevent by obliterating dead space at index cover

2. Early Sepsis

  • Most often due to:
    • Inadequate debridement.
    • Delay to soft tissue closure.
  • Classification issues: “Superficial vs deep” infection in open fractures is misleading — almost always represents a deep problem
  • Antibiotic suppression:
    • Possible for low virulence organisms (e.g. coagulase-negative staph) until union.
    • Not advisable for MRSA, Gram-negatives — often need surgical revision.
  • Examples:
    • IM nail infections: early CRP rise; lock bolt wounds & entry site infection are red flags → early exchange nailing + antibiotics may succeed if caught before pus and high-virulence organisms.
    • Established infection: implant removal, debridement, resection, reaming/lavage; interim external fixator; later definitive fixation.
  • External fixator pin site infections:
    • Avoid pins in zone of injury.
    • If infection → relocate pins outside compromised tissue.

Primary Amputation in Open Tibial Fractures

Primary amputation is damage control surgery in limb trauma when salvage is not viable or would harm the patient. The aim is life before limb, with function preserved where possible.

Absolute Indications

  1. Uncontrollable haemorrhage from open tibial injury
    • Often in blast injuries with multiple arterial/venous injuries at different levels.
  2. Crush injuries exceeding >6 h warm ischaemia time.
  3. Incomplete traumatic amputations with severely injured distal remnant.

Relative / “Grey Zone” Indications

(Decision depends on injury pattern + patient factors)

  • Avascular limb >4–6 h warm ischaemia
    • Threshold lowered if hypotensive during this period.
  • Segmental muscle loss in >2 compartments (esp. posterior compartment).
  • Segmental bone loss > ⅓ tibial length (≈ >10–12 cm) — often >12 months reconstruction time.
  • Severe open foot injury with poor plantar skin, hindfoot fracture/dislocation, talar extrusion → functional outcome equivalent to BK prosthesis.

Not an Indication

  • Absent plantar sensation at presentation
    • Often neuropraxia; >50% recover sensation.
    • Requires exploration of tibial nerve during debridement.
    • Amputation only if: divided tibial nerve + major muscle loss + prolonged ischaemia.

Damage Control Context

  • If patient unstable → prolonged salvage risks ARDS, DIC, MOF.
  • Options:
    1. Primary amputation if injury clearly unsalvageable.
    2. Shunt + span: temporary intravascular shunt + external fixation, limited debridement → return when physiology stable.

Reconstruction vs Amputation – Timeframe & Function

  • Distraction osteogenesis: ~45 days/cm → 10 cm defect = ~15 months, multiple surgeries.
  • BK prosthetic rehab: ~5–6 months to independent walking if no other injuries
  • Function: Medium-term studies show similar QoL and return to work for successful salvage vs amputation (Grade IIIB/IIIC)
  • Long-term: AK amputees often abandon prosthesis after ~10 years; BK users maintain independence longer.
  • Two consultant rule for amputation decisions: medicolegal + ethical safeguard.
  • Socioeconomic context matters — occupation, support, rehab potential influence decision.

Management of Severe Open Fractures in Children

  1. Debridement — same principles as adults; no paediatric “tissue recovery advantage.”
  2. Skeletal fixation — dictated by fracture pattern; beware of growth plates with IM devices.
  3. Union times — generally shorter in <12 years (prepubertal).
  4. Soft tissue cover — vascularized flaps remain gold standard; avoid reliance on grafting/granulation.

Viva ready: exam questions and model answers

Part One — The Acute Open Tibial Fracture

The case: a clinical photograph of an open tibial fracture at the junction of the middle and distal thirds of the leg, with periosteal stripping and a high-energy mechanism. A young man, extricated from a road traffic collision.

A1 — Q: Describe this photograph.

❝Say it like this

“This is a clinical photograph of a left lower leg showing an open fracture of the tibia at the junction of the middle and distal thirds. There is a transverse wound with exposed bone, the periosteum is stripped over an appreciable length, and the surrounding soft tissue envelope is contused — the appearances are of a high-energy injury.

I cannot assess perfusion, sensation or the compartments from a photograph, and I would want to see the whole patient.

My immediate concern is whether this limb is perfused and whether the compartments are tense, because those are the two findings that would take him to theatre tonight rather than to a scheduled list.

In summary: this is a high-energy open tibial fracture that will need combined orthoplastic care, and I would classify it only after the primary wound excision.”

!Red flag / trap

Do not say “this is a Gustilo IIIB” from the photograph. The 2020 Standards are explicit that the grade follows debridement, when the true extent of devitalised tissue and periosteal stripping is known. Gustilo–Anderson also has poor interobserver reliability even among experienced surgeons (Brumback & Jones, JBJS Am 1994). “Gustilo 3b with periosteal stripping” is fine as a filing label on many revision notes and fatal as an opening line.

They may push
  • “Go on then, what grade is it?”“I would not commit before debridement. What I can say is that the periosteal stripping and the energy make a IIIB likely, and I would plan the list on that assumption while reserving the grade.”
  • “What features tell you it is high energy?”Soft tissue: large or multiple wounds, crush, degloving, neurovascular injury. Bony: comminution, segmental fracture, tibia and fibula fractured at the same level, bone loss. And the mechanism itself — prolonged extrication is a marker of energy transfer and of crush.
  • “Why does periosteal stripping matter to you?”It is the difference between a bone that will heal and a bone that will not. Stripped bone is devascularised, it is the substrate for non-union and for infection, and it commits me to vascularised soft tissue cover.
Soft tissue signs of high energyBony signs of high energy
Large or multiple woundsComminution
Crush injuryTibia and fibula fractured at the same level
Degloving, open or closedSegmental fracture
Nerve or vascular injuryBone loss
★Add the mechanism, and add it early

Say the mechanism out loud as part of this answer. A road traffic collision with prolonged extrication is itself a marker of energy transfer, and in this case it also raises crush injury and the risk of rhabdomyolysis — which is precisely where the examiner is taking you several questions later. Naming it here makes the later answer look like judgement rather than recall.

A2 — Q: What classifications do you know?

❝Say it like this

“The one in universal use is Gustilo and Anderson, described in 1976 and modified in 1984. Type I is a low-energy wound under a centimetre; type II is one to ten centimetres with moderate soft tissue injury; type III is high energy, subdivided into IIIA with adequate soft tissue cover despite extensive injury, IIIB with inadequate cover and periosteal stripping requiring vascularised soft tissue reconstruction, and IIIC with an arterial injury requiring repair.

It is used because it is simple and it is prognostic — infection and non-union rise with grade.

Its limitations are the more interesting part: the wound size is a surrogate rather than a definition, interobserver reliability is poor, the grade can only be assigned after wound excision, and type III is heterogeneous — critically, it does not capture an arterial injury in a limb that is still perfused.

So alongside the grade I would describe the mechanism, the state of the soft tissue envelope, likely contamination and the fracture pattern — because the number alone does not plan the operation.”

§The evidence that makes the limitation concrete

This is where the answer earns its mark, and it is the strongest single citation in the station.

Stranix et al., Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;140:1033–41 — “Not all Gustilo type IIIB fractures are created equal”. In 361 flaps for IIIB/IIIC injuries, comparing single-vessel with three-vessel runoff and adjusting for confounders: relative risk 3.07 for complications, 3.43 for take-backs, and 4.80 for total flap failure.

Chummun et al., Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;131:303–9 asked the same question in UK practice and found vascular injury independently worsens long-term limb function.

The one-line version: “A IIIB limb with one vessel and a IIIB limb with three vessels are not the same reconstructive problem, and the classification does not distinguish them.”

★”IIIB+” — use the concept, be careful with the label

Some notes propose a modification in which IIIB has three intact vessels, “IIIB+” has a vascular injury with at least one axial vessel patent, and IIIC is a devascularised limb.

“IIIB+” could not be verified as established or widely adopted terminology. The underlying evidence is real and quotable; the label is not something an examiner is guaranteed to recognise.

So use it like this: “There is a proposed modification that separates a IIIB with intact runoff from one with a vascular injury and a still-perfused limb — sometimes written IIIB+. Whether or not the label is adopted, the evidence behind it is Stranix and Chummun, and it changes how I plan the reconstruction.” The substance carries the answer and the label cannot be turned against you.

They may push
  • “How reliable is the classification?”Poorly. Reported interobserver agreement is modest even among experienced surgeons, which is one reason the 2020 Standards tie classification to debridement.
  • “Any other classification?”OTA-OFC, which scores five domains and has better reliability; and the Ganga Hospital Open Injury Score (Rajasekaran), which adds a comorbidity and physiology component and was designed specifically for salvage decisions in tibial IIIB. I would still describe the injury in words rather than rely on a number.
  • “Classify the degloving.”Arnez, Khan & Tyler, JPRAS 2010;63:1865–9, from 79 complex limb injuries: pattern 1 abrasion or avulsion; pattern 2 non-circumferential degloving; pattern 3 circumferential single-plane; pattern 4 circumferential multi-plane. The practical point is that resuturing degloved skin only worked in pattern 2, and pattern 4 needs serial excisions before reconstruction.
  • “Why does closed degloving matter?”Because it is invisible and it extends the zone of injury. It tells me the excision will be larger than the wound suggests and that I should expect to come back.

A3 — Q: How would you manage this patient?

❝Say it like this

“He is a trauma patient with a limb injury, not a limb injury with a patient attached, so I would manage him by ATLS alongside the trauma team, and manage the limb by the 2020 BOA/BAPRAS Standards.

My priorities for the limb, in order:

  • Document distal perfusion and neurology before analgesia or sedation, and again after any manipulation.
  • Realign and splint, then reassess the pulses — a large proportion of apparent vascular compromise in a displaced fracture is positional.
  • Intravenous antibiotics within one hour of injury — co-amoxiclav 1.2 g eight-hourly, or clindamycin 600 mg if penicillin-allergic.
  • Photograph the wound, remove gross contaminants only, and apply a saline-soaked gauze with an impermeable film seal. No irrigation, no antiseptic scrubbing, no swab, and no repeated inspection.
  • Tetanus prophylaxis by immunisation history and wound risk.
  • Trauma CT head to toe, with CT angiography of the limb incorporated into that series.
  • Early referral to the orthoplastic team for a combined consultant-delivered
    debridement.

Throughout, I keep a high index of suspicion for compartment syndrome, particularly given the extrication.”

★The antibiotic answer most candidates give at half length

Most stop at “co-amoxiclav, clindamycin if penicillin-allergic”. That is phase one of a two-phase protocol, and knowing why there are two phases is the discriminating part.

Phase 1 — environmental flora. Co-amoxiclav 1.2 g IV eight-hourly from within one hour of injury, continued until debridement and for 24 hours after wound excision.

Phase 2 — nosocomial flora. At definitive skeletal stabilisation and soft tissue cover, a single dose of teicoplanin 800 mg with gentamicin 1.5 mg/kg on induction.

The rationale: studies of deep infection after open tibial fracture show the causative organism usually differs from the organism cultured at presentation. Two different bacterial populations, two different agents. Doses follow local microbiology policy, and I would say so.

They may push
  • “Evidence for antibiotics at all?”Patzakis & Wilkins (CORR 1989) — infection rates fell substantially with early cephalosporin, and time to antibiotic was a stronger predictor of infection than time to debridement. It is one of the few interventions in this pathway with clear evidence of benefit.
  • “Gentamicin in a hypotensive polytrauma patient?”Single-dose prophylaxis is acceptable, but I would check renal function, dose on ideal body weight, and discuss with microbiology in established AKI or rhabdomyolysis — actively substituting a non-nephrotoxic agent in a myoglobinuric patient.
  • “Farmyard contamination — anything different?”Add anaerobic and clostridial cover, and it becomes an immediate debridement indication rather than a scheduled one.

A4 — Q: Take me through your examination of the limb.

❝Say it like this

“Once the primary survey is complete and life-threatening injuries are excluded, I examine the limb with a specific question in mind: is it perfused, is it innervated, and is a compartment at risk?

  • Perfusion. Palpate dorsalis pedis lateral to extensor hallucis longus, and posterior tibial behind the medial malleolus. Assess colour, temperature and capillary refill. If pulses are absent I correct hypovolaemia and hypothermia, compare with the other limb, realign and splint and reassess, then use a handheld Doppler and an injured-limb index — below 0.9 is abnormal.
  • Nerve. Deep peroneal for ankle and toe dorsiflexion and first web space sensation; superficial peroneal for eversion and the dorsum; tibial for plantarflexion, toe flexion and — the one I document specifically — plantar sensation.
  • Compartments. Pain out of proportion and pain on passive stretch. Tense compartments in an alert patient with those findings is a clinical diagnosis and I decompress.

And I document the wound: its site, its size, and what is exposed — bone, tendon without paratenon and exposed metalwork all require vascularised cover.”

!Red flag / trap

“If necessary, measure the compartment pressure with a Stryker monitor” — not in an alert patient. Compartment syndrome in a patient who can report pain is a clinical diagnosis, and reaching for a monitor delays decompression. Pressure monitoring belongs to the patient who cannot report pain: intubated, sedated, obtunded, or with a regional block. See section C3.

★The plantar sensation sentence

“I test and document plantar sensation specifically — not because it decides anything on its own, but because it is a prognostic marker and it is impossible to establish retrospectively.”

Then, if they push: the LEAP insensate foot study (Bosse et al., JBJS Am 2005;87:2601–8) found more than half of initially insensate salvaged patients had regained normal plantar sensation at two years, with no functional difference from the sensate salvage group. So it is a relative indication at most, and most of these are neurapraxic stretch injuries that recover.

They may push
  • “Why is pulselessness a late sign in compartment syndrome?”Because the sequence is venous compression first, then nerve, and arterial inflow fails only as compartment pressure approaches diastolic. A palpable pulse never excludes compartment syndrome.
  • “Which compartments?”Four in the leg — anterior, lateral, superficial posterior and deep posterior. Nine in the foot (Manoli & Weber, Foot Ankle 1990), of which the calcaneal compartment communicates with the deep posterior compartment of the leg.
  • “He’s had a popliteal block. Problem?”Yes. Regional anaesthesia can mask evolving compartment syndrome. Not an absolute contraindication, but it mandates documented pre-block neurology, team awareness, and a lower threshold for pressure monitoring.

A5 — Q: What investigations?

❝Say it like this

“Plain radiographs of the tibia and fibula including the joint above and below — I am looking for the fracture pattern, comminution, segmental injury and bone loss, because a segmental fracture with significant bone loss may not be amenable to an intramedullary nail.

Bloods including group and save, creatine kinase given the prolonged extrication, and a venous gas.

And CT angiography of the limb as part of the trauma series — my strong preference, provided it causes no delay to treatment.

I would be clear that this is contested. Dublin and colleagues showed that in patients with normal pedal pulses the yield is very low — one abnormal study in 23 — so a defensible unit policy is to image selectively. My reasons for imaging routinely are that it identifies occult arterial injury, shows anatomical variants, and defines the zone of injury before I plan a free flap.”

★Be precise about what these papers actually showed

A widely circulated version of these notes gets the substance right and the attribution wrong in three places. Fix all three.

Dublin BA, Karp NS, Kasabian AK et al., Ann Plast Surg 1997;38:404–7. 38 post-traumatic lower limb free flaps. Of 23 with normal dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial pulses, only one had an angiographic abnormality; of 15 with abnormal pulses, all were abnormal. This used catheter arteriography, not CTA — say arteriography.

O’Malley et al., Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2019;29:1119–24 — not Chummun. 56 open tibial fractures imaged with CTA in the trauma series: 29% had signs of arterial injury, with active extravasation in 5%, and pulses were palpable in every patient on admission. This is the occult-injury paper.

Chummun S, Khan U et al., Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;131:303–9 — a different question. It showed vascular injury independently worsens long-term limb function (Enneking 29.8 versus 24.4, p = 0.004).

Duymaz et al., Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;124:523–9 — 76 pre-operative CTAs: normal anatomy in 53%, anatomical variants in 7 patients, occlusive disease in 6, traumatic occlusion in 29%.

★Be precise about what the standards actually say

It is commonly said that CTA “is recommended in the updated UK lower limb standards”. That overstates it.

The 2020 Standards are permissive rather than prescriptive: CT angiography may be helpful if it can be performed as part of the major trauma series, and units should have a local policy on including angiography in extremity CT for open fractures.

Say it that way. “The Standards support it where it can be done within the trauma series without delay, and recommend units have a local policy” is accurate and unassailable; “the Standards recommend CTA” invites a correction.

★How to hold both sides of the CTA argument

“There is a genuine tension here. Dublin’s data argue that arteriography adds little in a young patient with two palpable pulses; O’Malley’s data show 29% occult arterial injury in a cohort where pulses were universally palpable. The difference is partly imaging modality and partly case mix. My position is that CTA is worth having when it can be obtained within the trauma series at no cost in time, and that units should have a policy rather than deciding case by case — which is also what the 2020 Standards say. What I would not do is send an ischaemic limb to the scanner.”

Holding both sides and then committing is the level 8 move. Reciting only your unit’s policy is not.

They may push
  • “What variant would change your plan?”Arteria peronea magna — the peroneal artery as the dominant or sole supply to the foot with a hypoplastic or absent posterior tibial. An absolute reason not to take a fibula.
  • “On-table angiography?”Reasonable in the trauma setting when the level of injury is unclear and I am already in theatre. It must never be the reason an ischaemic limb waits.
  • “Pulses are normal — can you relax?”No. Collateral flow means pulses do not exclude a significant arterial injury, which is the argument O’Malley makes.

A6 — Q: Will you take him to theatre tonight?

❝Say it like this

“Not for the fracture alone. Night-time surgery by tired, non-specialist teams is associated with inadequate debridement, and the 2020 Standards direct that debridement is performed on a scheduled orthoplastic list by consultants in both specialties.

I would operate immediately, out of hours, for four indications:

  • Vascular compromise — an acutely ischaemic limb.
  • Compartment syndrome.
  • Gross contamination — marine, agricultural or sewage.
  • The physiologically unstable polytrauma patient requiring damage control surgery. Absent those, first debridement is on a scheduled consultant-delivered list within 12

hours, because this is a high-energy injury. Twenty-four hours applies to low-energy injuries.

My aim is then definitive skeletal stabilisation and soft tissue cover within 72 hours, and certainly within 7 days.”

!Red flag / trap

“Otherwise wait and do it within 24 hours”, and “closed within 7 days”, both quote the wrong end of the standard. It is 12 hours for high energy and 24 for low; 72 hours for definitive cover, with 7 days as the outer limit. An examiner asking “and what is the standard?” is asking for the target, not the backstop — and answering with the backstop suggests you would be content to reach it.

§The timing evidence, in the right order

Lead with the one that has changed practice, then the one that supports your target.

Debridement timing does not drive infection. Pollak et al. (LEAP group), JBJS Am 2010;92:7–15 — 315 patients across 8 level-I centres. No significant relationship between infection and time from injury to debridement; the only independent predictor was time to arrival at the definitive trauma centre. Naique, Pearse & Nanchahal (JBJS Br 2006) found the same in a specialist UK centre.

Cover timing does. Godina 1986 — infection 1.5% under 72 hours versus 17.5% between 72 hours and 3 months. Gopal et al. 2000 — 6% deep infection with fix-and-flap within 72 hours. And the modern confirmation: Tiongco et al., Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2025;13(6):e6829 — meta-analysis of 16 studies and 973 patients; reconstruction within 72 hours associated with a 52% reduction in infection (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25–0.89).

The framing sentence: “Antibiotics urgently, debridement properly, cover early — and of those three, only the last one is really a clock.”

They may push
  • “What about the six-hour rule?”A historical artefact from Friedrich’s 1898 guinea pig experiments, not human data, and it has been removed from UK guidance. The clock that matters is antibiotics within one hour.
  • “Is Godina still valid?”It has been challenged — some contemporary series report acceptable outcomes out to 7–10 days, and the Standards accept 7 days. But the direction of the evidence has never reversed, and Tiongco’s 2025 meta-analysis reproduced the 72-hour benefit. My aim remains 72 hours.
  • “He’s 48 hours out already.”It sharpens the plan rather than abandoning it. He goes on the next appropriate joint list, and I would expect the dissection to be less forgiving than at 24 hours.

A7 — Q: Describe your debridement.

❝Say it like this

“Consultant-delivered, jointly with my orthopaedic colleague, on a planned list. Systematic, and in one direction only — superficial to deep, periphery to centre, and circumferential.

  • Tourniquet applied but not inflated where possible, so I can judge bleeding.
  • Extend the wound along fasciotomy lines — that preserves the fasciocutaneous perforators I may need for local flaps and keeps the incisions usable.
  • Excise skin edges back to bleeding dermis, then fat, then fascia, then muscle.
  • Muscle assessed on the four Cs — colour, consistency, contractility and capacity to bleed. Consistency and contractility are the reliable two; colour misleads and bleeding is confounded by tourniquet and hypotension.
  • Bone: remove fragments with no soft tissue attachment. I do not keep a loose fragment because it looks structural.
  • Copious low-pressure normal saline lavage — FLOW showed low pressure equivalent to high, and soap increased reoperation.
  • Then re-drape, re-glove, reassess — and only now do I classify the injury.

And I would say out loud that the quality of the debridement is a technical variable, not a clock variable — which is why it is done by consultants on a planned list rather than at three in the morning.”

They may push
  • “How do you protect your reconstruction at the first operation?”Extend along fasciotomy lines; site external fixator pins in safe corridors away from the posterior tibial perforators and away from my planned recipient vessels; and do not place pins where a flap will need to sit.
  • “What if you are not sure the debridement is adequate?”Then it is not, and I come back. A planned second look at 48 hours with a temporising negative-pressure dressing is far safer than covering doubtful tissue. What I do not do is bring the definitive flap forward to fit a target.
  • “Role of the VAC?”Temporising between debridements — it manages exudate and reduces the dressing burden. I would not claim it reduces infection or improves disability: WOLLF (JAMA 2018;319:2280–8) showed no improvement in Disability Rating Index at 12 months versus standard dressings.
  • “Why not exsanguinate before the tourniquet?”Compression exsanguination in a limb with crush or vascular injury risks embolising thrombus and devitalised material. Elevate and inflate, or work without.

A8 — Q: External fixator or intramedullary nail?

❝Say it like this

“The principle is straightforward: internal fixation only when definitive soft tissue cover is achieved in the same sitting. If cover is going to be staged, the skeleton stays in an external fixator.

So in this limb — high energy, periosteal stripping, and a soft tissue envelope I will need to reassess — my expectation is a spanning external fixator at the first operation, then fix and flap definitively once I know the wound is clean.

An intramedullary nail is right for a minimally comminuted fracture with a soft tissue envelope I can close definitively at that sitting. It is wrong in massive trauma with segmental loss, both because the reaming and the implant sit in a contaminated field and because I have committed the medullary canal before I know whether the wound is clean.

Pin sites go in safe corridors, away from the posterior tibial perforators and away from the vessels I may need as recipients.”

★The distinction that keeps this answer clean

Instability and loss of continuity are two different problems. Instability is solved by fixation, today. Loss of continuity is solved by reconstruction, over months.

A limb in a frame with a bone defect is a perfectly legitimate end-of-operation state, and saying so stops you being drawn into describing a bone reconstruction before the soft tissues are sorted.

A9 — Q: How would you reconstruct the soft tissue defect?

❝Say it like this

“I would plan the reconstruction at the same sitting as the definitive fixation, aiming for stable skeletal fixation, dead space obliterated, and durable vascularised cover in one operation within 72 hours.

The choice is made by the defect and the plan, not by preference. Two questions decide it: what does this tissue have to withstand, and does anyone need to get back in?

For a middle-third defect of this size with periosteal stripping and a high-energy zone of injury, my default is free tissue transfer — most often an anterolateral thigh flap, which gives a long pedicle, a two-team harvest, low donor morbidity, and tissue that re-elevates kindly if the orthopaedic surgeon needs to return.

Local options exist but I would use them cautiously here: a medial gastrocnemius flap reliably covers the proximal third, and a soleus or hemisoleus flap the middle third — but in a high-energy injury the muscle is often within the zone of injury, and a soleus flap raised through contused tissue is not a reliable operation. In the distal third local muscle is not an option and free tissue transfer is the answer.”

★The full list of things that actually decide the flap

Have these ready as a sequence rather than a debate about flap types.

  • Shear and friction — the sole of the foot or an amputation stump does better with fasciocutaneous tissue.
  • Dead space — a deep three-dimensional cavity needs muscle.
  • Planned orthopaedic access — if the orthopaedic surgeon needs to go back, or is planning distraction, fasciocutaneous tissue re-elevates far more kindly.
  • Pedicle length — I need to anastomose outside the zone of injury.
  • Positioning — if I need a lateral decubitus position for a posterior approach to the vessels, I favour a flap from the subscapular axis so I am not turning the patient mid-case.
  • Donor site morbidity, and what the patient does for a living.
!Where the muscle-versus-fasciocutaneous notes are dated — and where they are wrong

Two errors circulate widely here.

The citation is usually the wrong one. Chang & Mathes (PRS 1982;70:1–10) compared musculocutaneous with random-pattern flaps. The muscle-versus-fasciocutaneous study is Calderon, Chang & Mathes, PRS 1986;77:785–94, and it found the area of skin necrosis after bacterial inoculation was similar between the two despite higher blood flow in the fasciocutaneous flap. Muscle was superior only in the closed dead-space model, at clearing bacteria and depositing collagen.

The clinical evidence has not followed the bench. Yazar, Wei et al. (PRS 2006;117:2468–75), 177 free flaps for distal third and ankle open tibial fractures: no significant difference in flap survival, infection, osteomyelitis or union. Two meta-analyses (Mégevand, J Clin Med 2022; Dow, J Reconstr Microsurg 2023) find equivalence or a small edge to fasciocutaneous on partial flap loss and donor morbidity. There is no randomised trial and none registered.

And the bench has not gone away: Arshad et al., JPRAS 2025;107:119–29, a scoping review of 19 non-clinical studies, still reports enhanced angiogenesis, fewer infections, greater biomechanical strength, more stem cell recruitment and higher growth factor concentration with muscle — while explicitly noting this contradicts the clinical picture and calling for prospective trials.

★The way to say this that cannot be attacked

“The experimental evidence favours muscle, principally for dead space and bacterial clearance, and a 2025 scoping review of the basic science still shows better angiogenesis and growth-factor concentration. But that has never translated into a consistent clinical difference — the comparative series and the meta-analyses show equivalence, and there is no randomised evidence. So I would not claim one is superior. I choose by dead space, by shear, by whether the orthopaedic team needs re-access, and by pedicle length.”

Naming the discrepancy between the bench and the clinic, rather than picking a side, is what an 8 sounds like here.

The reconstructive options by level

LevelOptionsThe honest caveat
Proximal thirdMedial gastrocnemius (± scoring the epimysium for reach in elective cases); soleusReliable, and the one local flap worth defending. Lateral gastrocnemius risks the common peroneal nerve
Middle thirdSoleus or hemisoleus, bipennate with segmental supply; free flapSoleus is frequently within the zone of injury in high-energy trauma; the distally based hemisoleus has a less reliable blood supply and I would not offer it as a first line
Distal third and ankleFree tissue transfer — ALT (thin or superthin, long pedicle), gracilis with a split skin graft, latissimus for very large defectsLocal muscle is not available. This is the level that defines an orthoplastic service
Heel and weight-bearing soleMedial plantar artery flap — like-for-like glabrous, sensateThe best option for a small weight-bearing heel defect, and worth naming specifically
Any level, local alternativePropeller perforator flaps on posterior tibial perforators; reverse sural artery flapReverse sural has a real venous congestion and failure rate; a surgical delay improves reliability. Peroneal perforators require more to be divided for the same arc, so posterior tibial perforators are preferred
!Two corrections on the local flap notes

“Erdmann BJPS 1996” is Erdmann, Court-Brown & Quaba, Br J Plast Surg 1997;50:421–7 — “A five year review of islanded distally based fasciocutaneous flaps on the lower limb”. Get the year right if you name it, or describe the finding without the citation.

“Fasciocutaneous flaps are unsuitable where there has been vascular injury, degloving and in heavy smokers” is right in substance but overstated as a rule. Say it as a judgement: “A local fasciocutaneous flap depends on perforators that may lie within the zone of injury, so in degloving, in vascular injury and in a heavy smoker I would move to free tissue transfer rather than gamble on a perforator I cannot be sure of.”

They may push
  • “How do you plan a perforator flap?”Handheld Doppler or CT angiography to map the perforator, design so the pivot point is not compressed, include the fascia, and accept that the Doppler signal is a starting point rather than a guarantee — I confirm the perforator before I commit the flap.
  • “Why prefer posterior tibial perforators to peroneal?”They are more numerous and more consistent, and the arc of rotation is achieved with fewer perforators divided.
  • “Would you use a flow-through flap?”In a single-vessel limb, yes — it lets me use the vessel without sacrificing runoff. It is technically demanding and I would plan it, not improvise it.
  • “Free versus rotational flap — any data?”Pollak et al. (LEAP), JBJS Am 2000;82:1681–91: 195 limbs, 88 rotational versus 107 free flaps. No overall difference, but in OTA type-C osseous injury rotational flaps were 4.3 times more likely to have a complication requiring surgery. The more severe the bone injury, the more I favour free tissue.

A10 — Q: How do you expose your recipient vessels?

❝Say it like this

“Posterior tibial vessels, approached medially, outside the zone of injury — that is my default. The incision is just posterior to the posteromedial border of the tibia, and the vessels lie deep to the investing fascia once soleus is detached from the tibia. They sit in a protected position and the exposure is the same one I use for a fasciotomy, which matters if I have already made that incision.

The anterior tibial vessels are an alternative — found between tibialis anterior and extensor digitorum longus — but they sit in a tight fibro-osseous compartment, they are more superficial, and in tibial trauma they are more often within the zone of injury.

I anastomose end-to-side to a patent axial vessel to preserve distal flow, because in a limb that may have single-vessel runoff an end-to-end anastomosis sacrifices the vessel it is on. I would never sacrifice the sole remaining runoff vessel to the foot.

I aim for two venous anastomoses where the anatomy allows, including one to the deep system.

If the vessels are unusable at the level I need, I go proximal — a posterior approach to the popliteal division, as described by Godina, Arnez and Lister in 1991.”

!Red flag / trap

A comparative study attributed to Hung-Chi Chen, showing higher flap failure with the anterior tibial than the posterior tibial artery, could not be verified as existing, and the published comparison points the other way: Theile et al., ANZ J Surg 2022;92:1190–5 — 234 free flaps across two centres, 82% trauma, no clinically significant difference in flap failure or return to theatre between ATA and PTA.

Do not offer a citation you cannot defend. Give the anatomical and practical reasons for preferring the posterior tibial, and say that the comparative data show no difference in failure.

★On the two-vein claim

It is commonly stated that two venous anastomoses with at least one deep “has been shown to decrease flap failure rates”.

The direction of the evidence supports two veins, but it is observational and not uniform — some large series show benefit, others no difference, and there is a reasonable argument that a single good vein beats a second poor one.

Safer phrasing: “I aim for two veins including one deep where the anatomy allows, on the basis of observational data — while accepting that one good vein is better than a second marginal one.” That is defensible whichever way the examiner leans.

★The two godina papers — a free discriminator

Candidates conflate these constantly, and separating them costs one sentence.

Godina M, PRS 1986;78:285–92 — early flap cover; the 1.5% / 17.5% / 6% infection figures.

Godina M, Arnez ZM, Lister GD, PRS 1991;88:287–91 — the posterior approach to the blood vessels of the lower leg.

“Different papers, different questions” is the line.

★If pushed — take me through the posterior (godina) approach

“It is a posterior approach that reaches the popliteal vessels at their division and allows me to follow the posterior tibial vessels distally as far as I need, taking the anastomosis well proximal to the zone of injury.

The trade-off is positioning — it needs the patient lateral with the injured side down. So if I plan this, I choose a flap from the subscapular axis — latissimus or a scapular/parascapular flap — so I can harvest and inset without turning the patient.

The steps:

  • Thigh tourniquet applied but not inflated unless needed.
  • Longitudinal incision just medial to the posterior midline of the calf, from the level of the femoral condyles down to about the junction of the proximal two-thirds and distal third, preserving the short saphenous vein as a potential graft.
  • Divide the fascia, identify the sural nerve in the midline groove, and separate the two heads of gastrocnemius at the avascular raphe.
  • The popliteal vessels lie deep, passing beneath soleus.
  • Divide soleus, ligating its venous branches carefully.
  • Follow the popliteal vessels to the tibioperoneal trunk and then the posterior tibial vessels as far distally as the pedicle length and the zone of injury dictate.

Risks: sural nerve injury, bleeding from the soleal veins, and the positioning itself.”

They may push
  • “Why end-to-side?”In a limb that may have single-vessel runoff, an end-to-end anastomosis sacrifices the vessel it is on. Never sacrifice the sole remaining runoff vessel to the foot.
  • “What if there is no usable vein?”Vein graft, or an arteriovenous loop, staged or in the same sitting. That is planned before the day, not discovered on it.
  • “Recipient vessel distal to the zone of injury?”Possible, and sometimes the only option, but I would rather go proximal to clean vessels than distal into a limb whose runoff I may be compromising.
  • “Why not just use the medial approach?”I would, normally. The posterior approach is for when the vessels are unusable at the level I need, or when I want length and a clean field well proximal to the injury.

A11 — Q: How would you manage a devascularised limb?

❝Say it like this

“This is an acutely ischaemic limb and a surgical emergency measured in hours, not investigations. Skeletal muscle tolerates roughly three to four hours of warm ischaemia before irreversible damage, and beyond six hours revascularisation itself becomes dangerous.

In parallel, not in sequence: confirm with Doppler; realign and splint and recheck, because kinking is common; continue resuscitation and correct hypovolaemia and hypothermia; and alert orthopaedics, vascular surgery, anaesthetics and theatres while telling the patient and family that limb loss is possible.

Then theatre. Pre-operative angiography in a devascularised limb wastes time I do not have — on-table angiography if the level is unclear.

Order of play:

  • Shunt first — a Javid, Pruitt–Inahara or Sundt shunt, or improvised sterile tubing, secured with a vessel loop or a bypass clamp.
  • Temporary skeletal stabilisation with a spanning external fixator.
  • Fasciotomies — a very low threshold, and prophylactically in a limb ischaemic beyond about four hours rather than waiting to diagnose it.
  • Definitive vascular reconstruction with reversed contralateral long saphenous vein.
  • Debridement, then plan definitive fixation and cover.

And I warn the anaesthetist before the clamp comes off: reperfusion delivers a potassium and acid load.”

★The vein graft answer that shows you have thought about it

“I take contralateral long saphenous vein. Two reasons: the superficial venous system of the injured limb may be its only remaining outflow and may itself be damaged; and I avoid injuring an upper limb in a patient who may become dependent on it if the leg is lost.”

And on venous reconstruction: repair a deep venous injury proximal to the trifurcation — popliteal and above — because it reduces swelling and compartment pressures and improves arterial patency. Infra-popliteal venous repairs thrombose and the collateral network is usually sufficient.

★If pushed — the fix-first argument

“My orthopaedic colleague wants to fix first, in case the shunt dislodges. Our shared goal is perfusion, and the ischaemic clock constrains both of us.

I would shunt first: series comparing fix-first with revascularise-first show higher amputation rates in the fix-first group; a shunt is designed to tolerate manipulation and external fixation disturbs the field relatively little; and if the shunt does dislodge it is quick to reinsert, whereas muscle necrosis is not reversible.

I would offer to hold the shunt during fixation and frame it as a joint decision.”

A12 — Q: When would you amputate?

❝Say it like this

“The goal of lower limb reconstruction is a functional limb, not an anatomically complete one. A salvaged limb that is insensate, stiff, painful and non-weight-bearing is worse for the patient than a well-fashioned prosthesis.

Absolute indications, all essentially damage control: uncontrollable haemorrhage from the limb; a crush injury with warm ischaemia beyond six hours where the limb threatens life; an avascular limb beyond four to six hours with non-viable muscle; and an incomplete traumatic amputation where the distal part is unreconstructable.

Relative indications — the grey areas: segmental muscle loss across more than two compartments, particularly the posterior; massive segmental bone loss requiring years of reconstruction; a severe open foot injury with loss of plantar skin; absent plantar sensation with a divided tibial nerve; and any of these combined with a physiologically or socially compromised patient.

How the decision is made: jointly, by two consultants, documented, and wherever possible with the patient and family — with a second opinion from another specialist centre if we cannot agree.”

!Red flag / trap

“MESS more than 7 — salvage unlikely” is not an answer you can give. LEAP prospectively evaluated MESS, NISSSA, PSI, LSI and HFS (Bosse et al., JBJS Am 2001;83:3–14) and found none had adequate sensitivity or specificity to decide amputation. A high MESS is not an indication to amputate; a low MESS has reasonable negative predictive value for salvage, which is the more defensible half of the finding. Use the score for audit, communication and research — never for the decision.

If you want the components: skeletal/soft tissue injury 1–4, limb ischaemia 1–3 (doubled beyond six hours), shock 0–2, age 0–2. Know them, then say what they are not for.

★LEAP and METALS — quote both, and explain the difference

LEAP (Bosse et al., NEJM 2002;347:1924–31; 7-year follow-up MacKenzie, JBJS Am 2005): 569 patients with limb-threatening below-knee injuries. Sickness Impact Profile scores equivalent between amputation and reconstruction at 2 and 7 years. The strongest predictors of poor outcome were not surgical — low education, low income, poor social support, smoking, low self-efficacy and litigation.

METALS (Doukas et al., JBJS Am 2013;95:138–45): in US service personnel, amputees did better functionally with less PTSD than salvage patients.

The gold-medal use: “LEAP tells me my choice of amputation versus salvage matters less than I would like to believe, and that the patient’s social and psychological circumstances matter more. METALS points the other way, and the most likely explanation is population and rehabilitation resource rather than biology — young, fit, motivated patients with exceptional prosthetic services. Together they are an argument for shared decision-making and early rehabilitation input, not for a scoring system.”

A13 — Q: Take me through the below-knee amputation.

❝Say it like this

“This is a planned stump, not an improvised one, so I plan the level and the flap design with my rehabilitation medicine colleague and the prosthetist, with my consultant surgical colleague, and with the patient — optimising for the intended prosthesis.

The principle is that the metabolic cost of gait is inversely proportional to residual limb length — Waters et al. showed the energy cost of walking rises about 25% after traumatic transtibial and around 65% after transfemoral amputation. So preserve length, and preserve the knee at almost any cost.

But longer is not always better. An over-long stump has poor cover, a tenuous distal blood supply and a mobile fibula. My default, injury permitting, is a tibial section around 13 cm distal to the tibial tubercle; below about 5–6 cm the stump will not hold a prosthesis and I would consider a through-knee.

Technically: an extended posterior Burgess flap so the scar sits anteriorly away from the contact surface; posterior flap length about one third of the leg circumference plus a centimetre, reaching beyond the gastrocnemius musculotendinous junction. Bevel the anterior tibial cortex at 45 degrees and rasp it — a sharp crest is the commonest cause of a painful stump. Fibula divided 1–2 cm proximal to the tibia. Nerves divided sharply under gentle traction so they retract proximal to the bone end, with vessels ligated separately. Tourniquet down and haemostasis secured before closure. Myodesis of the gastrocnemius aponeurosis to drill holes in the anterior tibial cortex, then myoplasty — muscle that slides over the bone end is painful.”

★The addition most candidates miss

“At the index amputation I would consider targeted muscle reinnervation or a regenerative peripheral nerve interface rather than a simple traction neurectomy — coapting the major divided nerves to motor branches of expendable adjacent muscle, or implanting them into free muscle grafts, so the regenerating axons have somewhere to go. Dumanian et al. (Ann Surg 2019;270:238–46) reported a randomised trial showing TMR reduced both residual and phantom limb pain compared with standard neurectomy.”

And the honest caveat that goes with it: do not claim a pre-operative epidural prevents phantom limb pain. Nikolajsen et al. (Lancet 1997) showed it does not. Site the block for perioperative analgesia and say so.

★The fillet of sole flap — worth naming

“Where the foot is unsalvageable but its plantar skin is intact and perfused, a fillet of sole flap provides glabrous, durable, potentially sensate tissue for the stump — spare parts surgery, taking the best tissue from a limb that is being discarded. It can be pedicled on the posterior tibial vessels or transferred free.”

It also gives you the general principle, which is more examinable than the flap: in a limb that is coming off, the amputated part is a donor site.

They may push
  • “Why not a skew flap?”Robinson’s skew flap is an alternative with comparable healing in dysvascular amputation. In trauma, flap design is dictated by what tissue has survived rather than by a named technique, and the long posterior flap is more often available.
  • “Guillotine amputation — when?”In sepsis or an unstable, contaminated patient — a rapid open transection at the lowest viable level as damage control, revised formally once stable. Never closed primarily.
  • “What is an Ertl?”Osteomyoplasty creating a tibiofibular bony bridge to give an end-bearing stump. Higher complication rate, reserved for selected cases.

A14 — Q: Your flap fails on day two. What now?

❝Say it like this

“Take-back is the default while the flap is salvageable, so the first thing that matters is monitoring frequent enough to catch it. Back to theatre, explore the anastomoses, and treat the cause — thrombus, kink, compression, haematoma, or an unrecognised zone-of-injury vessel.

If the flap is lost, I would not assume the next step is another free flap and I would certainly not assume it is an amputation. Wei et al. (PRS 2001;108:1154–60) reviewed 2,126 extremity free flaps with 59 failures: 37 of those, nearly two thirds, were managed conservatively — debridement, dressings and skin grafting onto a healthy granulating bed — with only 17 needing a second free flap and 2 coming to amputation. Of the second free flaps performed, only about one in ten failed.

So my sequence is: find out why it failed; reassess the patient as a whole — smoking, nutrition, thrombophilia, sepsis; reassess the wound bed, because a bed that will granulate and take a graft is a different problem from exposed bare bone; and only then decide between conservative management, a local option, and a second free flap.”

★The sentence to have ready

“Flap failure is not the same as reconstructive failure, and it is a long way from amputation.” Wei’s series is the reason I say that — most extremity flap losses were resolved without a second free flap.

Part Two — The Transferred Limb

The case: repatriated from a holiday destination two days after a road traffic collision. Extricated some hours after the accident. Gustilo–Anderson IIIB. He has already had wound excision, external fixation and a negative pressure dressing abroad.

B1 — Q: How would you manage this patient?

❝Say it like this

“I would restart the assessment from scratch rather than inherit it. He has been operated on in another system, two days ago, and I have not seen the wound.

  • Review the transferred notes, operative record and any imaging — specifically what was excised, what was left, and what fixation was used.
  • History and full ATLS primary and secondary survey, because a transferred patient can arrive with missed injuries.
  • Whole-body trauma CT with CT angiography of the injured limb.
  • Examine the limb myself — perfusion, neurology and the compartments — and document it.

Then, if he is stable, I would take him to the next scheduled joint orthoplastic list for exploration, further excision if needed, and definitive reconstruction — rather than operating out of hours on a two-day-old injury.”

★The answer nobody gives — and it is a real UK issue

He has been an inpatient in a foreign hospital and had surgery there. That carries a specific and well-recognised risk of multidrug-resistant organism carriage — carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales, MRSA and others.

So: screen and isolate on arrival according to local infection prevention policy, and discuss antimicrobial cover with microbiology rather than defaulting to the standard open fracture protocol. You also do not know what antibiotics he has had, for how long, or whether anything was cultured.

Saying this marks you out immediately, because it is the one thing about a repatriated patient that genuinely changes management.

★The professionalism content this case demands

Consent for a reconstruction that may fail and for the possibility of amputation, with a second consultant opinion documented if amputation is being considered.

The conversation with the patient and family — he has been repatriated, is far from where the injury happened, and may have had little explanation so far.

Practicalities of repatriation — travel insurance, records in another language, and who is following up what.

Routine but marked: VTE prophylaxis, analgesia including neuropathic cover, nutrition, smoking cessation, and psychological support.

They may push
  • “Would you take down the NPWT dressing on the ward?”No. I would inspect the wound formally in theatre with the orthopaedic surgeon, under anaesthesia, where I can act on what I find. Repeated ward inspections contaminate and tell you little.
  • “What if the transferring team’s debridement was inadequate?”That is precisely why I explore. If the excision is inadequate I re-excise properly and delay definitive cover to the same admission rather than covering dead tissue.
  • “He is two days out — has the 72-hour window gone?”Not yet, and it is a target rather than a cliff. But it means the case should be planned for the next appropriate list, not deferred.
  • “What if he is still unstable?”Then he waits, and I say so. The 72 hours is a quality standard, not an instruction to operate on an unstable patient — life before limb.
★Why the window matters technically, not just as a standard

Beyond 72 hours deep infection risk rises and the operation gets technically harder — the perivascular tissues become oedematous, then friable, then fibrotic, and dissecting recipient vessels in that field is a different operation.

It also drives the fixation decision: internal fixation only when definitive soft tissue cover is achieved at the same sitting. If cover is going to be staged, the skeleton stays in an external fixator.

Part Three — Compartment Syndrome, Rhabdomyolysis and the Late Sequelae

The examiner now turns to the other leg: a tense, excruciatingly painful calf in a patient who was trapped for several hours, with a falling urine output, a mild metabolic acidosis and a creatine kinase of 6,000.

C1 — Q: What is going on, and what will you do?

❝Say it like this

“This is compartment syndrome of the contralateral leg until proven otherwise, and given the prolonged extrication I am equally concerned about rhabdomyolysis.

The findings that make the diagnosis are a tense, excruciatingly painful compartment with severe pain on passive stretch of the toes — and the falling urine output with mild acidosis points to myoglobinuric renal injury.

So: urgent fasciotomies by a two-incision technique, and in parallel I would alert the anaesthetic and critical care teams and send an urgent plasma CK so the rhabdomyolysis is not diagnosed late.

This is a clinical diagnosis in an alert patient. I would not delay decompression to measure a pressure.”

★Pathophysiology — the critical closure model

“Pressure rises within a relatively fixed osseofascial compartment — from bleeding, from muscle swelling, or from reperfusion.

The prevailing explanation is the critical closure theory: when compartment pressure approaches capillary perfusion pressure the capillaries collapse, and muscle and nerve become ischaemic.

The sequence:

  • An initiating cause raises compartment pressure.
  • Veins are compressed first. Outflow obstruction drives fluid down its hydrostatic gradient into the compartment, raising pressure further — a positive feedback loop.
  • Traversing nerves are compressed — paraesthesia is the first neurological sign.
  • Only late does arterial inflow fail, as compartment pressure approaches diastolic. Pulselessness is a late and unreliable sign.”
★On the timings

Notes commonly give reversible damage within 4 hours and irreversible myonecrosis and nerve damage by 8. Other sources put the onset of ischaemic injury nearer 2 hours with irreversible change at 6 to 8.

Quote a range and say what it depends on — perfusion pressure, the degree of pressure elevation and the tissue. “Muscle tolerates a few hours; irreversible change is generally described from around six to eight hours” is defensible either way. A single confident number is not.

C2 — Q: Take me through the fasciotomy.

CompartmentContentsNerveArtery
AnteriorTibialis anterior, EHL, EDL, peroneus tertiusDeep peronealAnterior tibial
LateralPeroneus longus and brevisSuperficial peronealBranches of peroneal
Superficial posteriorGastrocnemius, soleus, plantarisSural (sensory)—
Deep posteriorTibialis posterior, FDL, FHL, popliteusTibialPosterior tibial and peroneal
❝Say it like this

“Two incisions.

Medial incision — about 1 to 2 cm posterior to the posteromedial border of the tibia, full length. Through skin and fat, release the fascia over the superficial posterior compartment, then detach the origin of soleus from the tibia to enter the deep posterior compartment. The posterior tibial neurovascular bundle lies just deep to the investing fascia here and is at risk — so the release is full length but deliberate.

Lateral incision — about 2 cm lateral to the anterior border of the tibia, full length. Release the anterior compartment, then retract its muscles medially to identify and divide the anterior intermuscular septum, protecting the superficial peroneal nerve which runs on it, to release the lateral compartment.

Both releases are full length, and I confirm all four compartments are decompressed before I leave.”

★Why “full length” matters — and the two classic failures

Say this unprompted; it is the sentence that shows you have seen an inadequate release.

The two commonest reasons a fasciotomy fails to decompress:

  • A skin incision that is too short, leaving a constricting fascial band at either end. The skin itself is constricting in a swollen leg.
  • Failure to detach soleus, so the deep posterior compartment — the one that produces Volkmann’s equivalent in the leg — is never actually opened.
★If pushed — two-incision versus single-incision

“I use two incisions. It costs an extra wound, but it avoids the extensive anterior and posterior skin undermining a single lateral incision requires — which devascularises skin in a limb that may already be compromised — and it allows more muscle to prolapse, which is the point of the operation.”

C3 — Q: And if he were intubated and sedated?

❝Say it like this

“In a patient who cannot report pain — intubated, sedated, obtunded or regionally blocked — the clinical signs are unavailable, so I would use continuous compartment pressure monitoring.

My threshold is a differential pressure — diastolic blood pressure minus compartment pressure — of less than 30 mmHg, sustained (McQueen & Court-Brown, JBJS Br 1996;78:99–104).

Why delta pressure rather than an absolute number: capillary perfusion pressure is in the region of 20 to 30 mmHg, so an absolute compartment pressure around 30 mmHg will theoretically collapse capillaries in a normotensive patient — but in a hypotensive patient capillaries collapse at a much lower absolute pressure. The delta accounts for that, which is why it is the more reliable criterion in exactly the polytrauma patient you are worried about.”

★On “two consecutive hours”

Some notes specify decompressing if the criterion is met “for two consecutive hours”.

McQueen’s criterion is a sustained ΔP below 30 mmHg; the precise duration is an operational detail that varies between units and protocols, and a persistently low delta in a deteriorating limb should not be watched for a fixed period out of adherence to a number.

Say “sustained” and add that you would not wait on a clock if the limb were deteriorating clinically. Monitoring supports a clinical decision; it does not replace it.

Asking the intensivist about rising analgesic requirement is a genuinely intelligent proxy for pain in a sedated patient, and almost nobody says it. Add the others: unexplained tachycardia, escalating vasopressor need, rising CK, and increasing tenseness on serial examination. C4 — Q: Is there ever a reason not to decompress?

❝Say it like this instead

“Decompression exists to rescue threatened muscle and nerve. Where the tissue is already dead, there is nothing to rescue and the operation adds infective risk without benefit — so established myonecrosis is a genuine contraindication.

In late presentation I would make that judgement with the orthopaedic and critical care teams, on the clinical picture, the trend in CK, and imaging where it would change the decision — rather than on a fixed number of hours. The later the presentation, the more the balance shifts from rescue towards managing rhabdomyolysis and sepsis.

The foot is different, and it is genuinely contested. Fasciotomy remains the standard treatment, but the evidence is low-level and both routes carry real morbidity — so I would treat it as an individualised decision made with a foot and ankle surgeon, rather than as a rule in either direction.”

I wouldn’t set a time threshold, because there isn’t a validated one — ischaemic damage doesn’t correlate linearly with elapsed time. I’d decide on the limb and the physiology: a woody, anaesthetic, paralysed limb with no capillary refill, alongside a very high CK.

And there’s evidence behind the caution — in missed compartment syndrome, a systematic review found 21 amputations among 63 surgically managed limbs, so operating late increases the amputation rate rather than reducing it.

So in a stable patient I’d splint in a functional position and manage the metabolic consequences — fluids, potassium, serial CK, renal support — and reserve surgery for sepsis arising from the dead muscle, at which point the operation is debridement or amputation. That’s a decision I’d make with a second consultant, document, and explain to the family.

I’d add that this logic is for the lower limb — in the upper limb I’d still decompress, because fine motor function is worth more risk.”

★The foot figures, attributed properly

If you are going to quote numbers here, quote them the right way round — the frequently cited two-thirds figure describes patients who were operated on, not patients managed conservatively.

Around two-thirds of patients who underwent decompressive fasciotomy for foot compartment syndrome reported pain, discomfort and stiffness on walking at one year, and about 17% developed postoperative paraesthesiae. Older series reported very poor return to work; more recent data report around 78% returning to work after fasciotomy.

The defensible summary: “Neither route is benign, the comparison has never been made prospectively, and that is exactly why I would individualise it.”

★On the MRI step

Some notes advise MRI beyond 10 hours to distinguish reversible ischaemia from established myonecrosis, and not operating beyond three days.

MRI for muscle viability is not routine UK practice in acute compartment syndrome, and obtaining it should never delay decompression in a limb that is still salvageable. There is a defensible role in the late, equivocal presentation where the question is genuinely whether there is anything left to save.

Present it as an occasional adjunct in the late equivocal case, not as a step in the pathway — and never as something you would wait for in an acute limb.

C5 — Q: Tell me about rhabdomyolysis.

❝Say it like this

“Myocyte breakdown releasing intracellular contents — myoglobin, sarcoplasmic enzymes and electrolytes — into the circulation.

The consequences that matter: acute kidney injury from myoglobin, hyperkalaemia with arrhythmia, metabolic acidosis, DIC, and compartment syndrome — which is both a cause and a consequence, so a persistently rising CK should make me re-examine the limb.

Diagnosis is on CK, conventionally above 1000 IU/L, with serum and urine myoglobin supportive but inconsistently present. CK rises within hours, peaks at 24 to 72 hours and falls over 7 to 10 days with a half-life around 36 hours — so a CK that fails to fall means ongoing muscle injury. His CK of 6,000 fits.

Management is with critical care:

  • Early, large-volume, controlled fluid resuscitation — the single most important intervention.
  • Treat the cause and the complications, particularly hyperkalaemia.
  • Urine alkalinisation may be considered, having excluded alkalosis.
  • Mannitol is debated and I would not use it routinely — particularly with established AKI, oliguria, or alongside alkalinisation.”
★The link back to the limb

“A missed compartment syndrome causes rhabdomyolysis, and rhabdomyolysis causes compartment syndrome.”

So in this patient the two diagnoses reinforce each other, and a CK that is not falling after adequate fasciotomies means I go back and look at the limb rather than blaming the kidneys.

C6 — Q: He returns at 18 months with a draining sinus. What now?

❝Say it like this

“Chronic osteomyelitis until proven otherwise, and it is managed in a bone infection MDT rather than by me alone.

Pre-operatively: focused history and examination, plain films and CT for cortical detail and sequestra, staging with Cierny–Mader, and host optimisation — nutrition, glycaemic control, smoking cessation and limb vascularity.

At operation: excise the sinus tract en bloc, radical excision of all necrotic soft tissue and sequestrum, and deep bone samples using a no-touch technique with separate instruments — with antibiotics stopped two weeks beforehand to maximise yield, provided he is not septic.

Then the three reconstructive requirements: skeletal stability, dead space management, and vascularised soft tissue cover.

Post-operatively: culture-directed antibiotics and rehabilitation.

And the honest conversation: amputation is a treatment, not a failure, and it is on the table for failed salvage, unachievable eradication, or a patient who is not a candidate for a long reconstruction.”

!Three corrections to the circulating notes on this section

Cierny–Mader host classes are A, B and C — not four. B is subdivided into Bl (local compromise), Bs (systemic) and Bls (both). The anatomic types are I–IV; the host classes are three with B subdivided. Notes that list four host types are wrong.

“More than 50% union is a good indicator” is a rule of thumb, not a validated threshold. Quote it as a clinical judgement about bone quality and healing potential, not as a measurement.

“A frame for 18 months” is at the pessimistic end. Published series in infected tibial defects report an external fixation index of roughly 37–46 days per centimetre and mean total frame times around 11 to 12.5 months. Say “often around a year, longer for larger defects” — it is more accurate and more useful in the consent conversation.

★Route of antibiotics — the update most notes predate

Say six weeks of culture-directed therapy after adequate debridement — and add that since OVIVA (Li et al., NEJM 2019;380:425–36; 1,054 patients) oral therapy is non-inferior to intravenous for bone and joint infection, so an early oral switch is standard rather than a compromise.

Reciting “six weeks of IV antibiotics” as an automatic default is pre-OVIVA practice.

Evidence Summary

Every citation below has been checked against the primary source. Where a claim in the source notes could not be verified, it has been removed rather than reworded.

#ReferenceWhat it gives you
1Eccles S, Handley B, Khan U, McFadyen I, Nanchahal J, Nayagam S. Standards for the Management of Open Fractures. BOA/BAPRAS, Oxford University Press, 2020The UK framework — antibiotics within 1 hour, debridement 12/24 h, cover within 72 h, classification after debridement, no ED irrigation or swabs, local policy on CT angiography
2NICE NG37, Fractures (complex): assessment and management, 2016Antibiotics within 1 hour; care in a specialist centre
3Gustilo RB, Anderson JT 1976; Gustilo, Mendoza & Williams 1984The classification and its type III subdivision
4Brumback RJ, Jones AL. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994;76(8):1162–6Poor interobserver agreement in Gustilo grading, even among experienced surgeons
5Arnez ZM, Khan U, Tyler MPH. JPRAS 2010;63:1865–9Four patterns of soft-tissue degloving. Only pattern 2 tolerates resuturing; pattern 4 needs serial excision
6Stranix JT et al. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;140:1033–41“Not all Gustilo IIIB fractures are created equal.” Single- vs three-vessel runoff: RR 3.07 complications, 3.43 take-backs, 4.80 total flap failure
7Chummun S, Khan U et al. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;131:303–9UK data — vascular injury independently worsens long-term limb function (Enneking 29.8 vs 24.4, p = 0.004)
8O’Malley O, Trompeter AJ et al. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2019;29:1119–2429% arterial injury on CTA in open tibial fractures, with palpable pulses in every patient on admission. Not a Chummun paper
9Dublin BA, Karp NS, Kasabian AK et al. Ann Plast Surg 1997;38:404–7Selective arteriography: 1 of 23 abnormal with normal pulses; 15 of 15 abnormal with abnormal pulses. Catheter arteriography, not CTA
10Duymaz A, Moran SL et al. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;124:523–976 pre-operative CTAs — variants in 7, occlusive disease in 6, traumatic occlusion in 29%
11Patzakis MJ, Wilkins J. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989;243:36–40Time to antibiotic is the key modifiable predictor of infection
12Pollak AN et al. (LEAP). J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92:7–15315 patients — no relationship between time to debridement and infection. Time to the definitive centre was the only independent predictor
13Naique SB, Pearse M, Nanchahal J. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006;88:351–7Debunks the six-hour rule; supports specialist orthoplastic centres
14Godina M. Plast Reconstr Surg 1986;78:285–92Early flap cover — infection 1.5% / 17.5% / 6%; failure 0.75% / 12% / 9.5%
15Gopal S et al. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2000;82:959–66‘Fix and flap’ within 72 hours — 6% deep infection
16Tiongco RFP, Rezwan SK, Mundy LR et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2025;13(6):e682916 studies, 973 patients — reconstruction within 72 h associated with a 52% reduction in infection (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25–0.89). The modern confirmation of Godina
17FLOW Investigators. NEJM 2015;373:2629–41Low-pressure equivalent to high-pressure lavage; soap increased reoperation
18Costa ML et al. (WOLLF). JAMA 2018;319:2280–8NPWT did not improve the Disability Rating Index at 12 months
19Pollak AN, McCarthy ML, Burgess AR (LEAP). J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000;82:1681–91195 limbs, 88 rotational vs 107 free flaps. No overall difference; in OTA type-C osseous injury, rotational flaps 4.3 times more likely to need a further operation
20Calderon W, Chang N, Mathes SJ. Plast Reconstr Surg 1986;77:785–94Muscle vs fasciocutaneous, canine — equal skin necrosis; muscle superior only in the closed dead-space model. (Chang & Mathes 1982 compared muscle with random-pattern flaps)
21Yazar S, Wei FC et al. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;117:2468–75177 free flaps for distal third open tibial fractures — no significant difference between muscle and fasciocutaneous in survival, infection, osteomyelitis or union
22Dow T et al. J Reconstr Microsurg 2023;39:526–39; Mégevand V et al. J Clin Med 2022;11:1557Two meta-analyses — equivalence, with a small edge to fasciocutaneous on partial flap loss and donor morbidity. All included studies retrospective; no randomised evidence exists
23Arshad U, Heron MJ, Mundy LR et al. JPRAS 2025;107:119–29Scoping review of 19 basic-science studies — muscle flaps show better angiogenesis, fewer infections, greater biomechanical strength and more growth factor. The authors note this contradicts the clinical evidence. The bench–clinic gap, in one citation
24Theile H, Wagels M et al. ANZ J Surg 2022;92:1190–5234 free flaps — no clinically significant difference between anterior and posterior tibial artery as recipient
25Erdmann MWH, Court-Brown CM, Quaba AA. Br J Plast Surg 1997;50:421–7Islanded distally based fasciocutaneous flaps on the lower limb — note the year is 1997, not 1996
26Godina M, Arnez ZM, Lister GD. Plast Reconstr Surg 1991;88:287–91The posterior approach to the blood vessels of the lower leg in microvascular surgery. A different paper from Godina 1986
27Wei FC et al. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;108:1154–602,126 extremity free flaps, 59 failures — 63% managed conservatively, 29% with a second free flap, 3% amputated
28Bosse MJ et al. (LEAP). NEJM 2002;347:1924–31; MacKenzie et al. JBJS Am 2005Amputation ≈ reconstruction functionally at 2 and 7 years; social and psychological factors dominate
29Bosse MJ et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;83:3–14MESS, NISSSA, PSI, LSI and HFS prospectively evaluated — none adequate to decide amputation
30Bosse MJ et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:2601–8Insensate foot: over half regained sensation by 2 years; not an indication for amputation
31Doukas WC et al. (METALS). J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95:138–45Military counterpoint — amputation outperformed salvage in a young, motivated, well-resourced population
32Fufa DT, Lin CH et al. J Reconstr Microsurg 2014;30:419–2622 lower limb replantations — 45% survival, deep infection 82%, mean 6 secondary procedures. The honest figure to quote
33McQueen MM, Court-Brown CM. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996;78:99–104ΔP below 30 mmHg, more reliable than an absolute compartment pressure
34Manoli A, Weber TG. Foot Ankle 1990;10:267–75 — “Fasciotomy of the foot: an anatomical study with special reference to release of the calcaneal compartment”Nine compartments of the foot; the calcaneal compartment communicates with the deep posterior compartment of the leg
35Foot compartment syndrome — systematic review and expert consensus literature (summarised in the NCBI Bookshelf compartment syndrome review)Fasciotomy remains the standard treatment, on low-level evidence with no randomised comparison. Roughly two-thirds report pain and stiffness at 1 year after fasciotomy, ~17% postoperative paraesthesiae; untreated disease causes contracture, deformity, neuropathic pain and ulceration
36Dumanian GA et al. Ann Surg 2019;270:238–46Randomised trial — TMR reduced residual and phantom limb pain versus standard neurectomy
37Nikolajsen L, Ilkjaer S et al. Lancet 1997 — “Randomised trial of epidural bupivacaine and morphine in prevention of stump and phantom pain in lower-limb amputation”Pre-operative epidural does not prevent phantom limb pain. Site the block for perioperative analgesia and say so
38Waters RL, Perry J, Antonelli D, Hislop H. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1976;58 — “Energy cost of walking of amputees: the influence of level of amputation”Energy cost of walking — approximately +25% traumatic transtibial, +65% transfemoral
39Cierny G, Mader JT (1985)Anatomic type I–IV plus host class A / B (Bl, Bs, Bls) / C — decides curative versus suppressive intent
40Li HK et al. (OVIVA). NEJM 2019;380:425–361,054 patients — oral non-inferior to IV for bone and joint infection. Changed UK practice

Supporting cast, worth knowing by name but not worth volunteering: Rajasekaran (Ganga Hospital Open Injury Score); OTA-OFC; Friedrich 1898 (the six-hour rule’s origin); Robinson (skew flap); Ertl (osteomyoplasty); Burgess (long posterior flap).

Read every answer

143 chapters and 1,186 viva questions with model answers, written for the FRCS (Plast). £149 a year.

SubscribeBrowse free sample chapters →