Free tissue transfer and perforator flaps in burn reconstruction

Overview

Free tissue transfer occupies a narrow but decisive niche in burn surgery. Across the literature it is repeatedly described as a rarely indicated procedure, with split-thickness skin grafting remaining the mainstay of operative burn treatment and free flaps reserved for a minority of cases ^[1][28]. The procedure earns its place when the alternatives run out: skin grafts and locoregional flaps are the workhorses of burn reconstruction, but they carry inherent limitations that directly affect outcomes, and microsurgical transfer becomes a viable option when those limitations bite ^[2]. The defining indication is soft-tissue deficit with exposure of critical structures: when tendon, nerve, vessel, bone, or joint is laid bare and local options are unavailable, free flap reconstruction provides robust coverage that nothing else can match ^[11][26].

The same anatomy that makes burns reconstructable also makes them treacherous for microsurgery. Free tissue transfer faces challenges specific to the burn patient: overall cardiovascular and respiratory stability, the availability of suitable recipient vessels for anastomosis, sufficient debridement of devitalized tissue, and a potentially increased risk of infection ^[28]. In acute burns these challenges translate into measurably higher failure rates than microsurgery elsewhere, a pattern attributed to the hyperinflammatory and hypercoagulable physiology of the burned patient ^[11]. Despite this, microsurgical reconstruction in acute burn care can reconstruct even challenging defects in a single stage, and contemporary series report that respecting these specific conditions yields a complication rate comparable to microsurgical reconstruction of other traumatic limb defects ^[9].

The work divides cleanly into two timelines. Primary or acute reconstruction addresses the open wound during the index admission, most often for limb salvage and coverage of vital structures ^[7]. Secondary or delayed reconstruction addresses established scar contractures and deformities, frequently years after injury, where free flaps restore function and appearance with low flap-loss and contracture-recurrence rates ^[6][11]. Microsurgical use in burns remains extremely limited overall, yet the majority of the literature supports expanding its application, and burn flap success and complication profiles now approach those of trauma reconstruction ^[3][30].

Indications

The threshold for free tissue transfer is the failure or unavailability of everything below it on the reconstructive ladder. Reconstructive options for burn defects span skin grafts; local, regional, and distant flaps; and free flaps, and the choice escalates with defect size, donor availability, and the structures at stake ^[2]. Free transfer is considered a last resort in severe burn cases, deployed when skin substitutes and local flaps are not viable options ^[5]. The decisive trigger is exposure of structures that cannot tolerate a graft: in the setting of soft-tissue deficit with exposed critical structures, free flap reconstruction is the only option that provides adequate coverage ^[26].

Across reported series the operative indications cluster tightly. In a 10-year single-center review, the indications for free transfer were bone exposure in 92% of cases and severe neck burn contracture in the remainder ^[26]. In primary burn reconstruction, the dominant indication is tissue deficit with exposure of tendons, nerves, vessels, bone, or joints after debridement ^[27]. Full-thickness hand injuries that expose tendon or bone require early, stable soft-tissue coverage to preserve function and permit rapid mobilization, which is the rationale for accepting the risk of microsurgery in that location ^[18]. Flame is the most common burn etiology overall ^[3], while high-voltage electrical burns predominate in some free-transfer series ^[25].

Selection is bounded by patient physiology as much as by the wound. Candidacy depends on cardiovascular and respiratory stability, the availability of vessels for anastomosis, adequate debridement, and infection risk ^[28]. The literature frames free transfer as appropriate in well-selected cases, where it may play a pivotal role in optimizing outcomes in both primary and secondary burn reconstruction ^[1].

Flap selection

The anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap is the dominant choice across burn microsurgery. In a single-site free-transfer series it was the most frequently performed flap at 57%, followed by parascapular flaps at 22% ^[29]. Verdaguer and colleagues propose the ALT as the first option for primary burn reconstruction, citing a 96.6% flap survival rate across 30 primary cases, predominantly for lower-limb electrical-burn defects ^[25]. Its appeal is versatility: the perforator ALT serves neck, wrist, foot, and face reconstruction interchangeably, and large defects can be covered by harvesting the flap on two or three perforators ^[22][33]. Refinements extend its reach, including microdissected thinning ^[46], double skin paddles for separate defects ^[19], and flow-through designs that reconstruct vessel and soft tissue together ^[20].

Other flaps fill defined roles. The free parascapular flap is an effective method for extensive facial burn deformities, used by Kalra and colleagues in 52 cases with high patient satisfaction and no complete flap loss ^[10]. The latissimus dorsi and ALT were the most frequently used flaps for acute primary reconstruction in one large center ^[27]. For the neck and face, the extended circumflex scapular flap resurfaces the neck ^[14], and radial forearm free flaps and the ulnar forearm flap have been used to release neck contractures with good aesthetic results and thin coverage ^[16]. Pre-expanded flaps remain valuable for head and neck resurfacing, where pre-expansion is an invaluable adjunct ^[13]. The introduction of perforator flaps in 1989 expanded the options further, allowing primary donor-site closure and superior functional and cosmetic outcomes, and the pure-skin perforator flap now offers exceptional thinness through subdermal dissection ^[38][39].

The unifying principle is individualization. Each anatomic region presents unique challenges, and Seth and colleagues conclude that the choice of free flap must be tailored to the wound and the patient rather than to a single preferred flap ^[2]. In delayed facial reconstruction, lateral thigh, lateral arm, and radial forearm flaps were all drawn upon in a single series according to defect location and depth ^[15].

Electrical burns and limb salvage

High-voltage electrical burns are the archetypal indication for acute free transfer. These injuries follow a distinct pathophysiology and progressively damage skin and deeper tissues, frequently ending in amputation ^[24]. The deep destruction exposes vital structures and necessitates free flap reconstruction to maximize tissue coverage while minimizing functional loss ^[23]. In a cohort of 89 electrical-injury patients, the total amputation rate was 13.5%, and development of compartment syndrome, rhabdomyolysis, elevated myoglobin and creatine kinase, kidney failure, sepsis, or respiratory complications was associated with higher amputation risk ^[24].

Free flaps change the trajectory for these limbs. Flow-through ALT flaps, which reconstruct both the segmental arterial defect and the soft-tissue defect simultaneously, achieved an 80% limb-salvage rate in a high-voltage upper-extremity series despite a higher flap-failure risk than other burn etiologies ^[20]. Free ALT flaps with a single-perforator pedicle healed uneventfully in all 12 patients in another high-voltage extremity series, with a mean transfer time of 5.25 days after injury ^[21]. For the distal leg and foot, where local tissue is scarce, free ALT transfer is described as very reliable, performed at an average of 23.18 days after injury ^[22]. Some groups have avoided early microsurgical flaps in electrical burns over concerns that microvascular injury could increase thrombosis, but this avoidance frequently results in amputation of the extremity ^[47].

Timing in electrical injury remains debated. A 23-patient high-voltage extremity study comparing early (under 21 days) with delayed (over 21 days, after at least two debridements) flap coverage found an overall flap-survival rate of 87%, with no statistically significant difference in failure or complications between groups; the authors describe a biologically timed approach, delaying reconstruction until tissue demarcation and vascular stability ^[23]. In the electrical-injury amputation cohort, both flap losses occurred in cases reconstructed early within the 5-to-21-day window, and the unit's procedure of choice was early decompression, serial necrectomy, and delayed early reconstruction ^[24].

Head and neck reconstruction

The neck and face are the most common sites for delayed free transfer in burns. Free flaps in the head and neck are used mostly for secondary reconstruction of cervicofacial contractures, and Ravula and colleagues reported 16 facial free flaps with no total failures, though secondary procedures were needed in most patients ^[15]. Anterior and lateral neck contractures limit range of motion, complicate airway management, and create cosmetic deformity; traditional release methods give variable results with residual tightness and recurrence, whereas microvascular transfer offers the potential to overcome those long-term limitations ^[16]. In a 10-year case series of nine neck-contracture free flaps, all flaps succeeded with significant range-of-motion improvement and good aesthetic contour, although five of nine required a secondary defatting procedure ^[16].

Flap and design choices in the neck reflect the demand for thin, pliable, color-matched skin. A free thin ALT flap can resurface even a mild anterior-neck contracture in a single stage with a near-normal contour ^[17]. The extended circumflex scapular free flap resurfaces the neck, but Angrigiani and colleagues showed that flap descent and loss of neck extension are significantly greater when burn sequelae involve both the anterior neck and the thorax than when they involve the neck alone, leading them to suggest larger or multiple flaps for combined neck-and-chest deformities ^[14]. In an algorithmic head-and-neck series, both locoregional and distant transfers had roles, pre-expansion was used in all locoregional and most free-flap reconstructions, and range of motion, aesthetics, and satisfaction improved long term while donor-site morbidity was minimized ^[13]. Free transfer sits at the top of a graded approach: local flaps are best for minor deep-burn defects because they bring the correct texture and color, but large deep wounds will not be satisfactorily resurfaced by simple grafting or small local flaps, so the choice escalates among Z-plasty, skin grafting, super-thin flaps, and free flaps ^[12]. Achieving thin coverage and staged defatting recur in neck free-flap reconstruction: in one series good aesthetic results were reached with thin coverage, and five of nine flaps required at least one secondary defatting procedure to reach optimal results ^[16].

Hand reconstruction

The burned hand is a high-stakes site where early coverage preserves function. Full-thickness hand burns frequently expose tendon or bone and demand early, stable soft-tissue coverage to allow rapid mobilization and preserve hand function ^[18]. Free transfer to the hand after thermal trauma is a rare indication whose safety and outcomes remain underreported, but in a series of 14 hands reconstructed acutely with free flaps, extremity salvage was achieved in all cases, with a single early flap loss managed by pedicled groin flap ^[18]. The ALT was the dominant flap, used in nine of those hands, supplemented by latissimus, serratus, and tensor fasciae latae transfers ^[18]. Functional recovery in that cohort was inhomogeneous, ranging from complete recovery to near-total loss of hand function depending on the injury pattern, and microsurgical failure rates were slightly higher than for upper-extremity free transfer in general but within a reasonable risk-to-benefit ratio ^[18].

In high-voltage electrical wrist and hand injury, ALT-based designs again predominate. A 25-patient series of double skin paddle ALT flaps for wrist and hand electrical burns, preceded by emergency fasciotomy and vascular reconstruction, achieved complete survival in 22 of 25 flaps ^[19]. For postburn hand contractures specifically, the evidence is thin and discordant: a systematic review of seven studies covering 1,310 patients found no consensus on the most efficacious technique, significant risk of bias across all studies, and heterogeneity that prevented meta-analysis, while emphasizing meticulous preoperative planning and intensive rehabilitation ^[32].

Pathophysiology and timing

The burned patient is microsurgically hostile in ways that drive both flap selection and timing. Free flaps in acute burns face a higher failure rate attributed to hyperinflammatory states and hypercoagulability ^[11]. This systemic inflammatory physiology produces a distinctive failure mode: a vulnerable phase that can last up to six weeks after burn, during which thrombosis of the flap microcirculation can occur even with patent arterial and venous anastomoses ^[35]. In a documented case, postoperative angiography after revision confirmed anastomotic patency yet failed to demonstrate small-vessel beds within the flap, and the flap was salvaged only by in-situ thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator ^[35].

Recipient-vessel selection is the second pathophysiologic constraint, governed by the zone of injury. The zone of injury is the traumatized area surrounding a wound that may not appear nonviable at initial debridement, and how to define and approach it for free-tissue coverage remains contested, with the existing literature limited to observational reports ^[37]. Knowledge of the vascular changes in this zone is crucial to the selection and preparation of recipient vessels for anastomosis ^[36]. Lo and colleagues concluded that proper recipient-vessel selection and adequate wound debridement are the determinants of successful free transfer in burns, and advocated a one-team approach because the operative plan may change when no suitable recipient vessel is found during dissection ^[36]. Performing the anastomosis away from the zone of injury, after thorough debridement of devitalized tissue, is the technical corollary that recurs across successful series ^[28].

Timing balances these risks against the wound. In a systematic review and meta-analysis stratifying acute reconstruction into three intervals, pooled free-flap failure was 7.32% at 0 to 4 days, 16.55% at 5 to 21 days, and 6.74% at 22 days to 6 weeks; Alessandri-Bonetti and colleagues concluded that reconstruction performed between 5 and 21 days carried a trend toward higher flap loss ^[5]. In one acute primary series the procedure was nonetheless most often performed in that 5-to-22-day window, reflecting the practical pull of debridement and patient stabilization against the biology ^[27].

Complications

The dominant complication is flap failure, and its frequency separates acute from delayed work. A systematic review and meta-analysis of acute burns found a total free-flap loss rate of 9.91% and a partial-loss rate of 4.76%, with venous thrombosis in 6.41% of cases, arterial thrombosis in 5.08%, and acute return to the operating room in 20.63% ^[4]. Older literature documents an even wider range, with prior studies reporting free-flap loss anywhere from 0% to 44% in acute burns ^[5]. Failure rates differ by region: in the same meta-analysis, lower-extremity flaps failed at 8.33% and upper-extremity flaps at 6.74% ^[4].

Beyond loss, the complication burden is substantial and reoperation common. In a 10-year single-center review the overall complication rate was 54%, comprising flap loss (15%), hematoma (15%), venous thrombosis (15%), infection (8%), amputation (8%), and wound-healing problems (23%), with 38% of patients requiring reoperation ^[26]. Hematoma and partial necrosis are the most frequently cited acute and nonacute complications in pooled analyses ^[3]. A specific late problem is hypertrophic scarring at the interface between flap and adjacent skin, occurring in 17% of one cohort ^[29]. Donor sites, by contrast, are generally tolerated well; one electrical-burn ALT series reported no donor-site morbidity, consistent with the primary-closure advantage of perforator flaps ^[20][38].

Salvage of the compromised flap is sometimes possible. Revision surgery alone may fail during the vulnerable inflammatory phase, but thrombolysis can rescue a flap with patent anastomoses and absent small-vessel perfusion ^[35]. Microsurgical failure rates in burn patients run slightly higher than in non-burn upper-extremity transfer, yet the procedure can still be performed with a reasonable risk-to-benefit ratio when the indication is limb or life threatening ^[18].

Special Considerations

In children, free tissue transfer is technically more demanding and carries a recognized risk of vasospasm, but it remains a good option when contracture is severe and simpler reconstructions have failed ^[33]. Karami and colleagues reported 100% flap survival across pediatric ALT perforator transfers for severe burn contractures of the neck, wrist, foot, and face, with full contracture release and good functional outcomes in a single-stage procedure ^[33]. Pre-expanded free flaps extend the technique to small recipient vessels: a pre-expanded thin deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap reconstructed a pediatric upper-extremity burn sequela with satisfactory aesthetic and functional results at 12 months despite the small-vessel diameter and vasospasm tendency that make pediatric free transfer difficult ^[34].

The lower extremity is a distinct consideration because the evidence is sparse. Bonetti and colleagues note that few studies investigate flap reconstruction outcomes in lower-extremity acute burns, leaving this common and difficult site underserved by high-quality data ^[31]. Pre-expansion and prefabrication broaden reconstructive reach in unusual sites; prefabricated tissue has been used to reconstruct the urethra after electrical amputation of the penis ^[44], and the delay phenomenon has been applied to enhance the viability of internal mammary artery perforator flaps ^[38].

Outcomes

Where free transfer is appropriately selected, success rates are high and improving. A systematic review of 13 studies covering 396 microsurgical burn reconstructions reported an average per-flap success rate of 92.7% for acute and 95.7% for reconstructive free flaps, and concluded that the success and complication profile of acute microsurgical burn reconstruction is similar to that of trauma reconstruction ^[3]. A direct comparison of burn and trauma microsurgery found burn flap success of 96.6% versus 92.5% for trauma, with no significant difference in complications, though burn patients had a significantly longer median length of stay ^[30].

Delayed reconstruction outperforms acute reconstruction on every flap-survival metric. In a meta-analysis of 1,026 free flaps for delayed burn reconstruction, the total flap-loss rate was 3.80% and partial-loss 5.95%, and the burn-contracture recurrence rate was strikingly low at 0.62%, leading the authors to conclude that free flaps are a safe and effective option for delayed reconstruction ^[6]. The flap-type signal in acute burns favors fasciocutaneous over muscle flaps: muscle flaps carried significantly higher risk ratios for total flap loss (2.32), arterial thrombosis (3.13), and amputation (8.89) than fasciocutaneous flaps in a meta-analysis of 181 acute-burn flaps ^[7].

For joint contractures, flap-based release achieves durable correction with both pedicled and free flaps. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 830 joint contractures reported contracture resolution in 98.9% of pedicled and 90.1% of free-flap reconstructions, recurrence of 1.8% and 0.6% respectively, and total flap loss of 1.5% and 2.9%; no significant difference in resolution, recurrence, or flap loss was found between flap types ^[8]. For burn scar contractures more broadly, a multicenter randomized controlled trial showed perforator-based interposition flaps maintained significantly greater scar surface area than full-thickness skin grafts at both 3 and 12 months (142% versus 92% at 12 months) ^[40].

Controversies and Evidence Gaps

The largest controversy is selection and timing without a consensus to guide them. A systematic review of burn scar contracture treatment found no consensus on when to use which technique, with all included studies showing methodological shortcomings and most using inappropriate statistical methods, so that no definitive conclusions about relative effectiveness could be reached ^[43]. A systematic review of flap reconstruction for post-burn neck contractures echoed this, finding no consensus on optimal flap selection or outcome evaluation and noting that inconsistent use of contracture classification systems and the absence of standardized, objective, and patient-reported outcome measures limit cross-study comparability ^[45]. For perforator flaps specifically, reviews conclude the technique is promising but its true clinical significance is undetermined because the underlying studies are few and of low quality ^[41][42].

Timing of acute reconstruction is genuinely contested. The meta-analytic signal that the 5-to-21-day window carries higher flap loss ^[5] sits alongside electrical-burn series in which delaying until tissue demarcation produced high survival ^[23], yet other groups argue that avoiding early microsurgery in electrical injury frequently costs the limb ^[21]. The zone of injury underlies much of this disagreement: it has never been fully and objectively defined, all studies to date are observational, and without a clear definition the placement of free-flap anastomoses rests on anecdotal technique reports ^[37].

The role of free transfer relative to its alternatives is also unsettled. Microsurgery remains extremely limited in burn management even as most of the literature supports expanding it ^[3]. Free flaps are technically demanding and not universally available, and a consensus protocol for free transfer in the primary management of open burn wounds is seen as the logical next step but does not yet exist ^[29]. Across the field, the recurring conclusion is that the evidence base is large but methodologically weak, dominated by uncontrolled case series, and in need of comparative trials before the relative value of free transfer can be settled ^[43][32].

References

[1] Jabir S, Frew Q, El-Muttardi N, Dziewulski P. "A systematic review of the applications of free tissue transfer in burns." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2014. PMID: 24518305 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24518305/ [2] Seth AK, Friedstat JS, Orgill DP, Pribaz JJ, Halvorson EG. "Microsurgical Burn Reconstruction." Clinics in plastic surgery 2017. PMID: 28888307 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28888307/ [3] Fan C, Azam F, Hinson C, Sink M, Jamison D, Awaida C, et al. "Free Flap Reconstruction in Burns: A Systematic Review of Current Practices and Evidence." Microsurgery 2025. PMID: 40552611 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40552611/ [4] Kasmirski JA, Alessandri-Bonetti M, Liu H, Corcos AC, Ziembicki JA, Stofman GM, et al. "Free Flap Failure and Complications in Acute Burns: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis." Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open 2023. PMID: 37817922 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37817922/ [5] Alessandri-Bonetti M, Kasmirski JA, Liu HY, Corcos AC, Ziembicki JA, Stofman GM, et al. "Impact of Microsurgical Reconstruction Timing on the Risk of Free Flap Loss in Acute Burns: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open 2024. PMID: 39129846 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39129846/ [6] Liu HY, Alessandri-Bonetti M, Kasmirski JA, Stofman GM, Egro FM. "Free Flap Failure and Contracture Recurrence in Delayed Burn Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis." Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open 2024. PMID: 39129842 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39129842/ [7] Arellano JA, Alessandri-Bonetti M, Liu HY, Pandya S, Egro FM. "Outcomes of Muscle versus Fasciocutaneous Free Flap Reconstruction in Acute Burns: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis." Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open 2024. PMID: 39129843 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39129843/ [8] Elemosho A, Raborn Macdonald LN, Bell DE, Janis JE. "Outcomes of Microsurgical Reconstruction of Post-Burn Joint Contracture-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." Microsurgery 2025. PMID: 40817644 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40817644/ [9] Ziegler B, Hundeshagen G, Warszawski J, Gazyakan E, Kneser U, Hirche C. "Implementation and Validation of Free Flaps in Acute and Reconstructive Burn Care." Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) 2021. PMID: 34356999 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34356999/ [10] Kalra GS, Kalra S, Gupta S. "Resurfacing in Facial Burn Sequelae Using Parascapular Free Flap: A Long-Term Experience." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2022. PMID: 34698838 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34698838/ [11] Alessandri Bonetti M, Egro FM. "The Role of Microsurgery in Burn Surgery." Clinics in plastic surgery 2024. PMID: 38789149 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38789149/ [12] Ogawa R. "Head and Neck Reconstruction in Burn Patients." Clinics in plastic surgery 2024. PMID: 38789148 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38789148/ [13] Heidekrueger PI, Broer PN, Tanna N, Ninkovic M. "Postburn Head and Neck Reconstruction: An Algorithmic Approach." The Journal of craniofacial surgery 2016. PMID: 26703027 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26703027/ [14] Angrigiani C, Neligan P, Thrikutam N. "Anterior Neck Resurfacing Using a Single Free Flap: Comparison of Flap Descent in Patients With Burn Sequelae of the Neck/Chest and Patients With Burn Sequelae of Only the Neck." Annals of plastic surgery 2019. PMID: 31464724 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31464724/ [15] Ravula P, Reddy DM, Rangachari S, Yerra K. "Role of Free Flaps in Facial Burn Reconstructions." Indian journal of plastic surgery : official publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of India 2024. PMID: 39741727 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39741727/ [16] Ferland-Caron G, Kwan PO, Tredget EE. "Free Tissue Transfer in the Reconstruction of Neck Contractures after Burn Injury: A Case Series." European burn journal 2023. PMID: 39599931 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39599931/ [17] Malhotra A, Shah UA, Chakraborty SS, Baraiya D, Shetty SP, Babu SR, et al. "Reconstruction of Postburn Mild Anterior Neck Contracture With a Free Thin Anterolateral Thigh Flap." Plastic and aesthetic nursing 2022. PMID: 36450074 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36450074/ [18] Ziegler B, Hundeshagen G, Will PA, Bickert B, Kneser U, Hirche C. "Role, Management, and Outcome of Free Flap Reconstruction for Acute Full-Thickness Burns in Hands." Annals of plastic surgery 2020. PMID: 32472799 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32472799/ [19] Cheng L, Dai Q, Du WL, Che KX, Cao TY, Shen YM. "Clinical Efficacy of Double Skin Paddle Anterolateral Thigh Flap in High-Voltage Electrical Burns of the Wrist and Hand." Annals of plastic surgery 2025. PMID: 40400052 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40400052/ [20] Hsiao YC, Yang JY, Chang CJ, Lin CH, Chang SY, Chuang SS. "Flow-through anterolateral thigh flap for reconstruction in electrical burns of the severely damaged upper extremity." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2013. PMID: 23000372 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23000372/ [21] Zhao JC, Shi K, Hong L, Jin ZH, Zhang X, Gao XX, et al. "Retrospective Review of Free Anterolateral Thigh Flaps for Limb Salvage in Severely Injured High-Voltage Electrical Burn Patients." Annals of plastic surgery 2018. PMID: 29309334 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29309334/ [22] Uslu A. "Reconstruction of the Distal Leg and Foot Using Free Anterolateral Thigh Flaps in Patients With High-Voltage Electrical Burns." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2019. PMID: 31032512 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31032512/ [23] Chaturvedi G, Singh A, Cheruvu VPR, Khan MM, Suhag K. "Timing and Outcomes of Free Flap Reconstruction in High-Voltage Electrical Burns of the Extremities: A Retrospective Study." Annals of plastic surgery 2026. PMID: 41538784 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41538784/ [24] Pedrazzi N, Klein H, Gentzsch T, Kim BS, Waldner M, Giovanoli P, et al. "Predictors for limb amputation and reconstructive management in electrical injuries." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2023. PMID: 36031494 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36031494/ [25] Verdaguer E, Bulla A, Serracanta J, Rivas D, Barret JP. "Anterolateral Thigh Flap for Acute/Primary Burn Reconstruction." European burn journal 2025. PMID: 40558629 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40558629/ [26] Alessandri Bonetti M, Jeong T, Stofman GM, Egro FM. "A 10-Year Single-Burn Center Review of Free Tissue Transfer for Burn-Related Injuries." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2024. PMID: 37703393 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37703393/ [27] Pessoa Vaz M, Brandão C, Meireles R, Brito IM, Ferreira B, Pinheiro S, et al. "The role of microsurgical flaps in primary burn reconstruction." Annals of burns and fire disasters 2018. PMID: 30863259 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30863259/ [28] Jabir S, Frew Q, Magdum A, El-Muttardi N, Philp B, Dziewulski P. "Microvascular free tissue transfer in acute and secondary burn reconstruction." Injury 2015. PMID: 25983220 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25983220/ [29] Brewin MP, Hijazi Y, Pope-Jones S, Exton RJ, Khan MS. "Free tissue transfer for burns reconstruction: A single-site experience." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2020. PMID: 32451129 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32451129/ [30] Sanchez CV, Hinson C, Dogaroiu A, Sink M, Odobescu A. "Comparing Outcomes in Microsurgical Reconstruction of Trauma and Burn Patients." Journal of reconstructive microsurgery 2026. PMID: 41776942 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41776942/ [31] Bonetti MA, Jeong T, Liu HY, Arellano JA, Pandya S, Stofman GM, et al. "Pedicled and Free Flap Lower Extremity Reconstruction in Acute Burn Injuries." Annals of plastic surgery 2025. PMID: 40209804 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40209804/ [32] Vosinakis C, Ippoliti S, Samoladas E, Haidich AB, Gamatsi IE, Smith L, et al. "Effectiveness of hand reconstruction techniques for the treatment of postburn contractures of the hand: A systematic review." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2024. PMID: 39423713 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39423713/ [33] Karami RA, Atallah GM, Makkawi KW, Ibrahim AE. "The use of the alt perforator flap for reconstruction of severe pediatric burn scar contractures." Annals of burns and fire disasters 2020. PMID: 32913436 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32913436/ [34] Gherle B, Pozner VL, Berkane Y, Watier E, Bertheuil N, Qassemyar Q. "Pre-expanded thin DIEP free flap in pediatric upper extremity reconstruction for burn sequelae: A case report." Annales de chirurgie plastique et esthetique 2024. PMID: 38216362 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38216362/ [35] Coeugniet E, Al Yafi MN, Lafrance D, Danino MA, Soulez G, Nguyen Q, et al. "Microcirculatory Free Flap Failure With Patent Anastomosis Salvaged by In Situ Thrombolysis in Vulnerable Phase Burn." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2019. PMID: 31032513 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31032513/ [36] Lo LJ, Yang JY, Wei FC. "Free flap transfer in burn reconstruction." Changgeng yi xue za zhi 1991. PMID: 2039975 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2039975/ [37] Loos MS, Freeman BG, Lorenzetti A. "Zone of injury: a critical review of the literature." Annals of plastic surgery 2010. PMID: 20948420 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20948420/ [38] Alsheshi M, El-Maaytah K, Abu Ashour M, Ritter E, El-Qawaqzeh K. "Enhancing Viability of Internal Mammary Artery Perforator Flaps Using Delay Phenomenon: Alsheshi Technique." Annals of plastic surgery 2025. PMID: 39970071 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39970071/ [39] Lin Wu ZQ, Bulla A, Aguilera Sáez J, Serracanta Domènech J, Barret JP, Rivas Nicolls DA. "Subdermal dissection technique for pure skin SCIA and ALT perforator flaps in burns and trauma defects: Clinical experience." Microsurgery 2024. PMID: 38798132 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38798132/ [40] Stekelenburg CM, Jaspers MEH, Jongen SJM, Baas DC, Gardien KLM, Hiddingh J, et al. "Perforator-Based Interposition Flaps Perform Better Than Full-Thickness Grafts for the Release of Burn Scar Contractures: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial." Plastic and reconstructive surgery 2017. PMID: 28121892 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28121892/ [41] Stekelenburg CM, Marck RE, Verhaegen PDHM, Marck KW, van Zuijlen PPM. "Perforator-based flaps for the treatment of burn scar contractures: a review." Burns & trauma 2017. PMID: 28261622 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28261622/ [42] Lewinson RT, Capozzi LC, Johnson K, Harrop AR, Fraulin FOG, Nickerson D. "A Review of Perforator Flaps for Burn Scar Contractures of Joints." Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) 2019. PMID: 30854364 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30854364/ [43] Stekelenburg CM, Marck RE, Tuinebreijer WE, de Vet HC, Ogawa R, van Zuijlen PP. "A systematic review on burn scar contracture treatment: searching for evidence." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2015. PMID: 25051521 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25051521/ [44] Prakash V. "Amputation of the penis due to electrical burn--role of prefabricated urethra in penile reconstruction." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2008. PMID: 18155844 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18155844/ [45] Shulkin A, Katz A, Bouhadana G, Izadpanah A, Danino AM, Efanov JI. "Flap reconstruction of post-burn neck contractures: A systematic review." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2025. PMID: 41110342 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41110342/ [46] Liang JL, Liu XY, Qiu T, Fu ZQ, Wang HY, Kong X, et al. "Microdissected thin anterolateral thigh perforator flaps with multiple perforators: A series of case reports." Medicine 2018. PMID: 29369171 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29369171/ [47] Castro JC, Coltro PS, Millan LS, Corrêa FB, Farina Junior JA. "Early Application of Microsurgical Flaps in the Electric Burns of Extremities: A Two Institutional Case Series." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2018. PMID: 29931152 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29931152/