Over the past few years, the use of propeller flaps, which base their blood supply on subcutaneous tissue or isolated perforators, has become increasingly popular. Because no consensus has yet been reached on terminology and nomenclature of the propeller flap, different and confusing uses of the term can be found in the literature. In this article, the authors report the consensus on the definition and classification of propeller flaps reached by the authors that gathered at the First Tokyo Meeting on Perforator and Propeller Flaps in June of 2009. Some peculiar aspects of the surgical technique are discussed. A propeller flap can be defined as an “island flap that reaches the recipient site through an axial rotation.” The classification is based on the nourishing pedicle (subcutaneous pedicled propeller flap, perforator pedicled propeller flap, supercharged propeller flap), the degrees of skin island rotation (90 to 180 degrees) and, when possible, the artery of origin of the perforator. The propeller flap is a useful reconstructive tool that can achieve good cosmetic and functional results. A flap should be called a propeller flap only if it fulfils the definition above. The type of nourishing pedicle, the source vessel (when known), and the degree of skin island rotation should be specified for each flap.

Despite the widespread use of free perforator flaps, pedicled perforator flaps seem not to be as widely accepted, probably because of the fear of vascular complications caused by transfer of a flap attached only by its vascular pedicle, prone to shearing, kinking, and trauma. In this article, the authors report on their experience with 85 consecutive cases, focusing on incidence, prevention, and management of complications. Eighty-five consecutive cases were treated over 6 years at the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department of the University of Palermo for defects of different causes that were reconstructed with a freestyle pedicled perforator flap, in every region of the body, including the head and neck (41.2 percent), trunk (20 percent), upper limb (7.1 percent), and lower limb (31.8 percent). The majority of flaps (67.1 percent) were 180-degree propeller perforator flaps. Complete flap survival was observed in 93 percent of cases. Six flaps (7 percent) had vascular complications that were managed with venous supercharging (two cases), derotation (one case), conservative management (two cases), or secondary skin grafting (one case). The authors provide their approach to each situation to prevent or manage complications. The 93 percent success rate in this series seems to be acceptable and demonstrates that these flaps might be safely included in the authors' routine. If the flaps are appropriately planned and executed, with the suggestions provided in this article, some mistakes can be avoided to make these flaps even safer. Therapeutic, IV.

Autologous fat transfer (AFT) is a procedure for adipose tissue (AT) repair after trauma, burns, post-tumor resections and lipodystrophies still negatively impacted by the lack of graft persistence. The reasons behind this poor outcome are unclear and seem to involve damages in either harvested/transplanted mature adipocytes or on their mesenchymal progenitors, namely adipose stromal/stem cells (ASC), and due to post-transplant AT apoptosis and involution. A rabbit subcutaneous AT regeneration model was here developed to first evaluate graft quality at different times after implant focusing on related parameters, such as necrosis and vasculogenesis. Standard AFT was compared with a strategy where purified autologous ASC, combined with hyaluronic acid (HA), assisted AFT. Five million of autologous ex vivo isolated CD29+, CD90+, CD49e+ ASC, loaded into HA, enriched 1 ml of AT generating an early significant protective effect in reducing AFT necrosis and increasing vasculogenesis with a preservation of transplanted AT architecture. This beneficial impact of ASC assisted AFT was then confirmed at three months with a robust lipopreservation and no signs of cellular transformation. By a novel ASC assisted AFT approach we ensure a reduction in early cell death favoring an enduring graft performance possibly for a more stable benefit in patients.

Background: Nonresorbable substances are still injected to enhance soft-tissue volumes and fill subcutaneous defects. Inflammatory reactions (often termed granulomas) to these materials can be functionally and socially disabling. Most therapeutic options used until now are nonspecific antiinflammatory treatments, targeting an ill-defined immune reaction of undefined cause. The minimally invasive intralesional laser treatment can remove the foreign substance and the inflammatory reaction with an 808-nm diode laser. Methods: Two hundred nineteen consecutive patients referred from September of 2006 until June of 2013 for inflammatory reactions to permanent facial fillers and treated with this technique at the authors’ institution with a minimum 6-month follow-up were studied. All patients were screened with an ultrasound soft-tissue examination and the lesions were classified as either cystic (implants inserted by bolus injections) or infiltrating (as in microdeposit injection). The authors’ therapeutic approach is summarized in an algorithm: infiltrating patterns were treated with intralesional laser treatment alone, whereas cystic distribution cases were also drained through stab wound incisions. The mean patient age was 49 years (range, 23 to 72 years); 204 patients were women. Results: Partial improvement was obtained in 30 percent of patients, whereas 8 percent discontinued the treatment because of a lack of satisfaction. Lesions disappeared completely in 62 percent. Complications included transient swelling in all cases, hematoma in 2 percent, secondary sterile abscess in 9.5 percent, and minimal scarring in 10 percent. Conclusion: A problem-oriented systematic approach to inflammatory complications from permanent fillers is proposed, based on the comprehensive work from the past 7 years, with an overall improvement rate of 92 percent. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.