Reconstructive surgery for stage III–IV sacral pressure ulcers: Local flap selection and surgical outcomes in 26 patients

Duong Manh Chien, Le Trung Thanh, Nguyen Ngoc Linh

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study evaluated the outcomes of reconstructive surgery for stage III–IV sacral pressure ulcers and assess the role of flap selection based on defect characteristics. A non-controlled interventional clinical study was conducted on 26 patients treated at the National Hospital for Tropical Diseases from November 2024 to November 2025. Seventy-three percent of cases were stage IV ulcers, with a mean defect size of 9 × 13 cm. A total of 81% of patients had post-debridement defects with exposed bone and associated dead space; reconstruction in these cases was performed using 14 V–Y musculocutaneous perforator flaps in 12 patients (2 patients required two flaps) and 15 gluteus maximus musculocutaneous rotation flaps in 9 patients (6 patients required two flaps). Five patients had defects without bone exposure or dead space; reconstruction was performed using 2 local fasciocutaneous rotation flaps and 4 fasciocutaneous perforator flaps (1 patient required two flaps). Postoperatively, complete flap survival was achieved in 100% of cases, and primary wound healing was observed in 81% of patients. Five patients developed surgical site infections requiring reoperation. The mean wound healing time was 18 days. No recurrence was observed during the 6-month follow-up period. Reconstruction using local flaps is an effective treatment for stage III–IV sacral pressure ulcers. Flap selection tailored to defect morphology plays a critical role in optimizing surgical outcomes.

Article Details

References

1. Awad SS, Stern JD, Milne CT, et al. Surgical Reconstruction of Stage 3 and 4 Pressure Injuries: A Literature Review and Proposed Algorithm from an Interprofessional Working Group. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2023;36(5):249-258. doi:10.1097/01.ASW.0000922708.95424.88
2. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline. International Guideline. Accessed March 9, 2026. https://www.internationalguideline.com
3. Gould LJ, Alderden J, Aslam R, et al. WHS Guidelines for the Treatment of Pressure Ulcers – 2023 update. Wound Repair Regen. 2024;32(1):6-33. doi:10.1111/wrr.13130
4. Oksman D, de Almeida OM, de Arruda RG, et al. Comparative study between fasciocutaneous and myocutaneous flaps in the surgical treatment of pressure ulcers of the sacral region. JPRAS Open. 2018;16:50-60. doi:10.1016/j.jpra.2017.12.001
5. Arowojolu OA, Wirth GA. Sacral and Ischial Pressure Ulcer Management With Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy With Instillation and Dwell. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147(1S-1):61S-67S. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000007613
6. Keys KA, Daniali LN, Warner KJ, et al. Multivariate predictors of failure after flap coverage of pressure ulcers. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(6):1725-1734. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181d51227
7. Tran TA, Pham KTQ, Vo DK, et al. Evaluating the efficacy of vascularized pedicled skin flaps in treating sacrococcygeal pressure ulcers. JPRAS Open. 2025;45:295-304. doi:10.1016/j.jpra.2025.06.014
8. El Naggar ANM, Fathy Ibrahim M, Abdel Azeem KM, et al. Comparative Study between Gluteal Artery Perforator Flaps and Local Fasciocutaneous Flaps in Reconstruction of Gluteal Pressure Ulcers. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024;12(3):e5671. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000005671
9. Bani Assad S, Sadri P. Various Flaps Used for Reconstruction of Pressure Injuries: A Narrative Review. World J Plast Surg. 2025;14(1):3-9. doi:10.61186/wjps.14.1.3