Pedicled Myocutaneous Flaps

Educational disclaimer. This article is provided for medical education. It is not a substitute for individualized clinical judgment, current institutional protocols, or formal society guidelines. Treatment decisions for pressure injuries, locally advanced breast cancer, chest wall reconstruction, and complex wound coverage should be made by appropriately trained multidisciplinary teams using the most up-to-date guidance.

Introduction

The musculocutaneous (myocutaneous) flap was first described by Tansini in 1906 for skin coverage after mastectomy, then largely abandoned and rediscovered in the 1970s when McCraw, Dibbell, Carraway, and others mapped reliable independent musculocutaneous territories. The modern era of reconstructive surgery rests on three foundational concepts that emerged in the late twentieth century and continue to govern practice in 2026:

The Mathes–Nahai classification of muscle and musculocutaneous flaps by patterns of vascular supply (Types I–V), which predicts flap reliability and informs flap selection. The latissimus dorsi and pectoralis major are Type V (one dominant pedicle plus secondary segmental pedicles); the tensor fasciae latae (TFL) is Type I (single dominant pedicle); and the gracilis is Type II (one dominant plus minor pedicles), a configuration that helps explain the historically high rate of skin-paddle necrosis in gracilis musculocutaneous flaps (Mathes and Nahai, Plast Reconstr Surg 1981).
The angiosome concept described by Taylor and Palmer, defining three-dimensional vascular territories of the body and providing the anatomic basis for safe flap design (Taylor and Palmer, Br J Plast Surg 1987).
The perforator-flap revolution, beginning with Koshima and Soeda’s deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap in 1989 and now extended by the “perforasome” concept, which enables harvest of skin and subcutaneous tissue on a single perforator without sacrificing the underlying muscle (Koshima and Soeda, Br J Plast Surg 1989; Saint-Cyr et al., Plast Reconstr Surg 2009).

Today’s reconstructive ladder ranges from secondary intention and skin grafts through local fasciocutaneous flaps, perforator flaps, pedicled musculocutaneous flaps, and free tissue transfer, with the choice driven by defect characteristics, patient physiology, donor-site morbidity, and oncologic timing (Janis et al., Plast Reconstr Surg 2011). The three historical cases below illustrate clinical problems that are still encountered in modern practice, although the operative strategies, oncologic care, and perioperative management have evolved substantially.

Case I

RS, a thirty-one year-old gentleman, suffered a gunshot wound in 1981 which left him paraplegic with a sensory level at T8. He required repeated catheterisation for his neurogenic bladder and this resulted in urethral fistulisation, and perineal and trochanteric ulceration. A suprapubic catheter cystostomy was performed. Eight years after his injury, he was admitted to the University Hospital where he was treated for septicemia and his urinary tract infection was controlled. He was then referred to the surgical service for treatment of his ulcers. On examination he was found to have atrophy of the lower trunk and limbs and a clean 8 × 10 centimeter perineal ulcer. Both ischial tuberosities formed part of the floor of this ulcer. On the left side was a five centimeter decubitus ulcer in the floor of which the greater trochanter could be seen. His haemoglobin concentration was 9.6 g/dL, serum albumin was 2.5 g/dL, and there was lymphopenia. After nutritional repletion and pressure offloading, he underwent ulcer debridement followed by coverage of the perineal defect with bilateral gracilis musculocutaneous flaps and coverage of the trochanteric defect with an ipsilateral tensor fasciae latae (TFL) flap. The TFL flap healed without complication. The skin paddle of the right gracilis flap underwent partial necrosis and the defect was closed by secondary intention.

Modern equivalent (2026). The clinical problem—a malnourished spinal-cord-injury patient with combined ischial, perineal, and trochanteric pressure injuries—remains common, but terminology, staging, and reconstructive choices have changed:

Terminology and staging. The term “decubitus ulcer” was retired in favor of “pressure injury” by the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) in 2016, with current staging including Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 3, Stage 4, Unstageable, and Deep Tissue Pressure Injury. International multi-society management is governed by the NPIAP/EPUAP/PPPIA Clinical Practice Guideline and the Wound Healing Society 2023 update.
Preoperative optimization. Hemoglobin 9.6 g/dL and albumin 2.5 g/dL identify protein-calorie malnutrition; modern protocols target albumin ≥ 3.0 g/dL, prealbumin recovery, smoking cessation, glycemic control, spasticity management, and treatment of osteomyelitis before flap surgery (Sameem et al., systematic review of pressure-ulcer flap outcomes, Plast Reconstr Surg 2012).
Wound-bed preparation. Sharp surgical debridement plus negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is now standard between debridement and definitive flap closure (WHS 2023 pressure-injury guideline).
Flap selection. The TFL flap remains a reliable option for trochanteric defects. For ischial and perineal defects, the gracilis musculocutaneous flap has largely been superseded by inferior gluteal artery perforator (IGAP), profunda artery perforator (PAP), posterior thigh V-Y advancement, and posterior medial thigh perforator flaps, all of which preserve muscle and provide more reliable skin coverage. When gracilis is used, contemporary practice favors a muscle-only flap with a skin graft, because the historical 15–35% rate of skin-paddle necrosis with the musculocutaneous variant—the same failure mode observed in this case—is well documented and reflects the Type II vascular pattern of the gracilis (Mathes and Nahai, Plast Reconstr Surg 1981; Sameem et al., Plast Reconstr Surg 2012).
Postoperative care. Strict pressure offloading (typically 3–6 weeks), spasticity control, bowel and bladder management, multidisciplinary spinal-cord-injury rehabilitation, and lifelong skin-surveillance protocols are essential to prevent recurrence, which historically exceeds 30% within five years.

Case II

PR, a 51 year-old lady, presented with a fungating cancer of the right breast. Examination revealed a 17 cm hard mass occupying most of the breast, with overlying peau d’orange and skin ulceration. The mass was fixed to the underlying chest wall. There were more than six firm, mobile axillary lymph nodes. Core biopsy showed poorly differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma. Staging was performed by chest radiograph, liver function tests, and bone scan and found no distant metastases. Because the mass was locally advanced and ulcerated, a “toilet” mastectomy was performed; the resulting chest wall defect was closed with a pedicled latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flap. She subsequently received external beam radiation therapy to the chest wall and axilla and then adjuvant chemotherapy. She died six months after surgery from a complication of chemotherapy.

Modern equivalent (2026). A patient with the same presentation—a T4d (inflammatory) or T4b locally advanced breast cancer with peau d’orange, skin ulceration, chest-wall fixation, and clinically positive axillary nodes—would be managed very differently:

Sequencing. Current international guidance from NCCN (Breast Cancer v6.2025) and ESMO (Cardoso et al., locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer, 2024) recommends neoadjuvant systemic therapy first—not upfront mastectomy. Standard regimens include anthracycline plus taxane backbones, HER2-directed therapy (trastuzumab ± pertuzumab) when HER2-positive, endocrine therapy for hormone-receptor–positive disease in selected scenarios, and immune-checkpoint inhibition with pembrolizumab in early triple-negative breast cancer based on the KEYNOTE-522 trial.
Surgery. After response to systemic therapy, surgery is modified radical mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection, and reconstruction is generally delayed because postmastectomy radiation is required in nearly all T4 disease. “Toilet” or “salvage” mastectomy with immediate flap coverage is now reserved for true palliation of bleeding or fungating tumors that have failed systemic options.
Reconstruction. When flap coverage is needed, the pedicled latissimus dorsi remains an excellent workhorse for chest-wall and delayed breast reconstruction. For autologous breast reconstruction proper, the abdominally based DIEP flap is the modern default, with significantly lower abdominal-wall morbidity than the pedicled TRAM (hernia approximately 0.7% with DIEP vs. approximately 3.5% with pedicled TRAM) (American Society of Plastic Surgeons evidence-based autologous breast reconstruction guideline, 2017; Chen et al., state-of-the-art autologous breast reconstruction, J Clin Med 2025).
Implant-based options. Pre-pectoral implant reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix has largely replaced subpectoral placement, avoiding animation deformity. Following the FDA’s 2019 Allergan Biocell recall for breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), informed consent for any textured implant is mandatory.
Survival. Outcomes for locally advanced and inflammatory breast cancer have improved markedly with modern multimodal therapy, although prognosis remains worse than for early-stage disease.

Case III

JC, a 23-year-old male electrician, sustained a 12,500-volt electrical injury with approximately 60% total body surface area burns and full-thickness injuries of the anterior chest, both upper limbs, and head and neck. After initial resuscitation, escharotomy, and serial debridement, his anterior chest wall wound exposed the sternum and adjacent costal cartilages. The defect was closed with a pedicled latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flap. He was discharged after a prolonged recovery but died approximately one year later from sternal osteomyelitis.

Modern equivalent (2026). Coverage of a contaminated chest-wall defect with exposed sternum is still a major reconstructive challenge. Contemporary care differs in several respects:

Wound preparation. Aggressive serial sharp debridement combined with NPWT is used to bridge from initial debridement to definitive flap closure and to reduce bioburden (sternal wound reconstruction systematic review, Healthcare 2024).
Flap selection. A muscle-flap algorithm guides closure: pectoralis major (turnover or advancement) covers most upper- and middle-sternal defects; latissimus dorsi addresses lateral or lower-sternal defects when pectoralis is inadequate; the rectus abdominis is reserved for lower-sternal and xiphoid defects when the internal mammary system is intact; omental flaps are used for extensive, infected, or radiated defects; and free tissue transfer is reserved for patients in whom pedicled options are exhausted (Healthcare 2024).
Antimicrobial strategy. Targeted intravenous antimicrobials based on intraoperative deep-tissue cultures, infectious-disease consultation, and adequate bone debridement before coverage have markedly reduced the historically high mortality of sternal osteomyelitis. Even so, contemporary mortality in deep sternal-wound infection remains approximately 5–6% with closure success of about 95% in specialized centers.
Burn reconstruction. Modern burn care includes early excision and grafting, cultured epithelial autografts and dermal substitutes, scar-band release and Z-plasty, and increasing use of perforator-based flaps for resurfacing of functionally critical units (face, neck, hand, axilla).

Discussion

1. Mathes–Nahai classification and the reconstructive ladder

Mathes and Nahai categorized muscles according to their pattern of vascular supply, a classification that remains in routine clinical use:

Type I — one vascular pedicle (e.g., tensor fasciae latae, gastrocnemius).
Type II — one dominant pedicle and minor pedicles (e.g., gracilis, trapezius).
Type III — two dominant pedicles (e.g., gluteus maximus, rectus abdominis).
Type IV — segmental vascular pedicles (e.g., sartorius).
Type V — one dominant pedicle with secondary segmental pedicles (e.g., latissimus dorsi, pectoralis major) (Mathes and Nahai, Plast Reconstr Surg 1981).

The reconstructive ladder—secondary intention, skin grafts, local flaps, perforator flaps, pedicled musculocutaneous flaps, free tissue transfer—has expanded in two directions since the 1980s. Below the ladder, NPWT and dermal substitutes have improved outcomes for wounds that previously required flaps. Above the ladder, perforator dissection and microsurgery now permit single-perforator flaps and chimeric free flaps that minimize donor-site morbidity (Janis et al., Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; Saint-Cyr et al., Plast Reconstr Surg 2009). A 2026 update to skin-flap classification consolidates these advances and is a useful contemporary reference (skin-flap classification update, 2026).

2. Advantages and modern alternatives to pedicled musculocutaneous flaps

Pedicled musculocutaneous flaps offer several enduring advantages: an axial vascular pedicle, the bulk needed to fill cavities and cover hardware, an autonomous blood supply that tolerates radiation and infection better than skin grafts, and—importantly in resource-constrained settings—no need for microsurgical equipment or expertise. Their disadvantages include donor-site functional and aesthetic morbidity, limited arc of rotation, and a fixed bulk that may exceed defect requirements.

In contemporary practice, perforator flaps (DIEP, ALT, IGAP, PAP, TAP, SCIP) and free tissue transfer have replaced many of the indications for which pedicled musculocutaneous flaps were originally championed, especially when soft-tissue coverage without muscle is acceptable. Nonetheless, pedicled musculocutaneous flaps remain workhorses in selected scenarios—head and neck reconstruction in salvage settings, breast and chest-wall reconstruction, pressure-injury coverage, and lower-extremity reconstruction in patients unsuitable for microsurgery—where their reliability is well established (pedicled musculocutaneous flap reliability in the free-flap era, 2025; Tsao et al., contemporary role of the pectoralis major myocutaneous flap, Head Neck 2025).

3. Pressure injury reconstruction

Modern pressure-injury management follows the NPIAP/EPUAP/PPPIA international guideline and the Wound Healing Society 2023 guideline, with several practice points relevant to the spinal-cord-injury population:

Multidisciplinary management combining wound care, plastic surgery, infectious disease, nutrition, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and seating clinics.
Confirmation and treatment of underlying osteomyelitis with bone biopsy before flap coverage.
Smoking cessation, optimization of glycemic control, spasticity control, and bladder and bowel management.
Flap-specific decisions: gluteus maximus rotation, V-Y, and IGAP for sacral defects; IGAP, PAP, gracilis muscle (with skin graft), and posterior thigh advancement for ischial defects; TFL and anterolateral thigh for trochanteric defects.
Postoperative pressure offloading, typically 3–6 weeks, followed by graduated sitting and lifelong skin surveillance (Sameem et al., systematic review, Plast Reconstr Surg 2012).

4. Breast and chest-wall reconstruction

For breast reconstruction, the abdominally based DIEP flap is the modern autologous standard, with the pedicled and free TRAM, latissimus dorsi (with or without an implant), PAP, and SGAP/IGAP flaps used selectively. Pre-pectoral implant reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix has largely replaced subpectoral placement. BIA-ALCL surveillance and informed consent are mandatory (ASPS 2017 guideline; Chen et al., J Clin Med 2025; FDA BIA-ALCL portal). Locally advanced breast cancer is managed with neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by surgery and adjuvant radiation as outlined in the NCCN and ESMO guidelines.

5. Chest-wall reconstruction and deep sternal wound infection

Deep sternal wound infection after cardiac surgery is the prototypical chest-wall reconstructive challenge. Contemporary algorithms emphasize early debridement, NPWT bridging, and definitive flap closure as outlined in the section on Case III. The pectoralis major covers most upper- and middle-sternal defects; latissimus dorsi, rectus abdominis, and omentum address more complex or lower defects; and free tissue transfer is reserved for failed pedicled options (sternal wound reconstruction systematic review, Healthcare 2024).

6. Complications and outcomes

Contemporary meta-analytic data for free flaps in maxillofacial reconstruction show pooled flap loss of approximately 6%, dehiscence 16–17%, and fistula 10–12%, with comparable rates for pedicled musculocutaneous reconstruction in similar indications (free-flap complications meta-analysis, J Clin Med 2026; pedicled flap reliability review, 2025). Flap-specific failure modes—gracilis skin-paddle necrosis, TRAM abdominal-wall weakness, latissimus seroma, and pectoralis bulk in slender patients—remain relevant for informed consent.

7. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols

ERAS protocols are now standard for major reconstructive surgery. Components include preoperative carbohydrate loading and nutrition optimization, multimodal opioid-sparing analgesia, normothermia, goal-directed fluid therapy, early enteral feeding, early mobilization, and structured flap-monitoring pathways. ERAS implementation in free-flap head and neck reconstruction has been associated with shorter length of stay and lower complication rates (ERAS for head and neck free flap surgery, JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2025; ERAS head and neck free-flap consensus, PMID 37938375).

Conclusion

The three cases presented—pressure injuries in a paraplegic patient, locally advanced inflammatory breast cancer, and a contaminated chest-wall defect after high-voltage electrical injury—illustrate clinical problems that are still encountered in surgical practice. The reconstructive principles introduced by Tansini, McCraw, Mathes and Nahai, and Taylor and Palmer remain foundational, but treatment now sits within a framework that includes perforator flaps and free tissue transfer, neoadjuvant systemic therapy for locally advanced breast cancer, NPIAP-based pressure-injury staging and management, structured algorithms for deep sternal-wound infection, BIA-ALCL surveillance, and ERAS-based perioperative care. The pedicled musculocutaneous flap retains an important role in selected indications—particularly when reliability, bulk, and infection tolerance are paramount—and remains an essential tool in the modern reconstructive armamentarium.

References

American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline: Autologous Breast Reconstruction with DIEP Flap or Pedicled TRAM Flap. Arlington Heights, IL: American Society of Plastic Surgeons, 2017. Link: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/medical-professionals/quality-resources/guidelines/guideline-2017-autologous-breast-reconstruction.pdf.

Bhattacharya, V., et al. “Reliability of the Pedicled Musculocutaneous Flap in the Free-Flap Era: A Contemporary Review.” 2025. Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11827873/.

Cardoso, F., et al. “Locally Advanced and Metastatic Breast Cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines.” 2024. PMID 38092246. Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38092246/.

Chen, Y., et al. “State-of-the-Art Autologous Breast Reconstruction.” Journal of Clinical Medicine (2025). Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11900405/.

European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel, and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline. International Guideline portal. Link: https://npiap.com/page/InternationalGuidelines.

Janis, Jeffrey E., Robert K. Kwon, and Christopher E. Attinger. “The New Reconstructive Ladder: Modifications to the Traditional Model.” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 127, no. Suppl 1 (2011): 205S–212S. Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21617433/.

Koshima, Isao, and Shogo Soeda. “Inferior Epigastric Artery Skin Flaps Without Rectus Abdominis Muscle.” British Journal of Plastic Surgery 42, no. 6 (1989): 645–648. Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2487447/.

Mathes, Stephen J., and Foad Nahai. “Classification of the Vascular Anatomy of Muscles: Experimental and Clinical Correlation.” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 67, no. 2 (1981): 177–187. Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7232566/.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast Cancer, Version 6.2025. Plymouth Meeting, PA: NCCN, 2025. Link: https://www.nccn.org/guidelines.

National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel. NPIAP Pressure Injury Stages and International Pressure Injury Guideline. NPIAP. Link: https://npiap.com/page/InternationalGuidelines.

Saint-Cyr, Michel, Corrine Wong, Mohammed Schaverien, Andrew Mojallal, and Rod J. Rohrich. “The Perforasome Theory: Vascular Anatomy and Clinical Implications.” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 124, no. 5 (2009): 1529–1544. Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19568042/.

Sameem, Mohammed, Toba Au, Sophocles H. Voineskos, Forough Farrokhyar, Bing Siang Gan, and Achilleas Thoma. “A Systematic Review of Complication and Recurrence Rates of Musculocutaneous, Fasciocutaneous, and Perforator-Based Flaps for Treatment of Pressure Sores.” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 130, no. 1 (2012): 67e–77e. Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22186496/.

“Skin Flap Classification: A Contemporary Update.” 2026. Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12944133/.

“Sternal Wound Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Algorithm.” Healthcare (2024). Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11595137/.

Taylor, G. Ian, and J. H. Palmer. “The Vascular Territories (Angiosomes) of the Body: Experimental Study and Clinical Applications.” British Journal of Plastic Surgery 40, no. 2 (1987): 113–141. Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3567445/.

Tsao, C., et al. “Contemporary Role of the Pectoralis Major Myocutaneous Flap in Head and Neck Reconstruction.” Head & Neck (2025). PMID 39740289. Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39740289/.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Breast Implant–Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL): Medical Device Reports and Safety Communications. FDA. Link: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/breast-implants/medical-device-reports-breast-implant-associated-anaplastic-large-cell-lymphoma.

“Complications of Free Flap Reconstruction in Maxillofacial Surgery: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Clinical Medicine (2026). Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12841716/.

“Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for Head and Neck Free Flap Reconstruction.” JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery (2025). Link: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaotolaryngology/fullarticle/2830792.

“ERAS Consensus for Head and Neck Free Flap Surgery.” PMID 37938375. Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37938375/.

“Wound Healing Society 2023 Guideline Update on Pressure Ulcer Management.” 2023. Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11403384/.