Introduction: Perforator-based flaps can be planned in any anatomic location in the body when there is a detectable perforator.
Although preoperative perforator mapping ensures safety and versatility of these flaps, there is no consensus yet about flap
planning in different anatomical locations.
Material and Method: 28 patients underwent perforator-based flap surgery for different anatomical locations as face (5),
sternum (3), back (5), lomber (4), sacral (4) and scrotal (4) areas, leg (2) and foot (1). 19 of the patients were male while 9 were
female. The mean age was 58.1±13.5 (22-80 years).
Perforator-based flaps were planned as V-Y design in face, sacral and scrotal areas while as perforator plus transposition flaps
for lomber area, leg and sternum. On the other hand, for foot the flap was planned as subcutaneous-pedicled turnover flap.
Results: The mean follow-up time was 10 months (3-36 months). Partial flap necrosis is seen in all 3 patients who had
underwent flap surgery on the lower extremity. There were no other complications seen in short- or long-term follow-ups.
Comorbid diseases were not statistically significant on complications rates (P>0.05).
Conclusion: V-Y flap for the face and the sacral area; and perforator plus transposition flap for back ,lomber area and sternum
are suggested as the ideal flap modifications for these anatomical locations. On the other hand, perforator-based flaps should
not be used as a first choice in reconstruction of lower extremity defects.
Keywords: Perforator-based, versatility, flap modification, planning