Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open logoLink to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open
. 2026 Jun 22;14(6):e7849. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000007849

Four Decades of the Anterolateral Thigh Flap: Celebrating a Milestone in Reconstructive Microsurgery

Marco Marcasciano *,†,✉, Luca Patanè ‡, Fu-Chan Wei §, Isao Koshima , Joon Pio Hong ∥, Jacopo Nanni **,††, Diego Ribuffo ‡, Manfredi Greco ‡‡, Alex Sorkin †,§§, Chad Chang †,¶¶, Hung-Chi Chen †
PMCID: PMC13286367  PMID: 42339280

Abstract

Background:

During the past 4 decades, the anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap has evolved into a cornerstone of reconstructive microsurgery. Since its first description in 1984, advances in perforator dissection and flap design have broadened its applications. Commemorating the 40th anniversary of the ALT flap, this review outlines key anatomical, technical, and clinical milestones that have shaped its evolution and enduring significance.

Methods:

A narrative review of clinical studies on the ALT flap was conducted, focusing on human, English-language publications from the past 40 years. Studies were selected based on relevance, innovation, and clinical impact. Data were extracted on technique, anatomy, and applications to highlight key advancements in flap evolution.

Results:

From 2712 articles screened, 138 met the inclusion criteria. Key advancements were categorized into anatomy and perforator patterns, composite and functional flap variants, vascular modifications, refinements in flap thickness, and novel applications with imaging integration.

Conclusions:

After 4 decades, the ALT flap remains a cornerstone in reconstructive microsurgery due to its reliable anatomy, design versatility, and low donor-site morbidity. Ongoing advances in imaging and surgical planning are expected to further optimize outcomes and expand its applications across complex reconstructive challenges.

Takeaways

Question: How has the anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap shaped the evolution of reconstructive microsurgery over the past 4 decades?

Findings: This review highlights the historical evolution, anatomical refinements, technical innovations, and expanding clinical applications of the ALT flap since its introduction in 1984.

Meaning: Over the past 4 decades, the ALT flap has evolved into a cornerstone of reconstructive microsurgery, driving major advances in perforator flap surgery and expanding the possibilities of complex, versatile, and patient-specific reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION

During the past 4 decades, the anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap has become a cornerstone of reconstructive microsurgery. First described by Song et al1 in 1984, its initial application was constrained by reliance on septocutaneous vessels. Subsequent adoption of intramuscular perforator dissection techniques, as demonstrated by Koshima et al,2–4 addressed these limitations. In 2002, Wei et al5 introduced retrograde intramuscular dissection, contributing to the development of freestyle perforator flaps.6,7 The core principle of precise dissection from fascia to source vessel while preserving muscle minimizes donor-site morbidity and enhances functional and aesthetic outcomes.

Today, the ALT flap is used across a broad range of reconstructive challenges, including head and neck reconstruction and limb salvage. Commemorating the 40th anniversary of the ALT flap, this review outlines key anatomical, technical, and clinical milestones that have shaped its evolution and enduring significance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This narrative review was conducted through a comprehensive literature search across MEDLINE, PubMed, PubMed Central, and the Cochrane Library. The search strategy focused on clinical studies related to the ALT flap, using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and the keywords: “anterolateral thigh flap,” “anterior thigh flap,” and “ALT flap.”

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria were limited to English-language human clinical studies published within the past 40 years, aligning with the timeline of the ALT flap’s development since its introduction. Studies not in English or deemed peripheral to the flap’s evolution were excluded. Articles published before December 11, 2023, were reviewed and selected by the authors. Priority was given to publications presenting significant technical innovations or clinically impactful findings.

Quality Assessment and Data Extraction

Two independent reviewers (M.M. and L.P.) extracted data on authorship, publication year, study design, defect location, flap composition, configuration, and notable ALT flap advancements. Discrepancies regarding study eligibility were resolved by consensus discussion (C.C., A.S., and H.C.C.). Expert opinions (H.C.C., F.C.W., D.R., I.K., M.G., and J.P.H.) were consulted to evaluate the significance of selected studies. Reference lists of included articles were also examined to ensure comprehensive coverage.

RESULTS

A summary of the clinical studies included in this review is provided in Figure 1. After the removal of duplicates, 2712 articles were identified as eligible based on title screening. The number was further reduced to 1853 after abstract review. Two independent authors then conducted a full-text evaluation of 394 studies, of which 138 articles met the inclusion criteria and were selected for final analysis.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Open in a new tab

Flow diagram summarizing the search results.

Due to editorial limitations, the article includes a maximum of 75 references. In cases of topic redundancy, the most clinically relevant publication was retained to ensure a concise yet comprehensive representation.

ANATOMY AND PERFORATOR PATTERNS

Since its introduction in 1984, the ALT flap has typically been harvested using the descending branch of the lateral circumflex femoral artery (LCFA). This vessel generally arises from the profunda femoris artery and travels through the intermuscular septum between the rectus femoris and vastus lateralis muscles, supplying musculocutaneous and septocutaneous perforators.

Initially, ALT flap harvesting was dependent on the presence of septocutaneous perforators, which required incisions near the vascular pedicle and anterograde dissection. However, these perforators are presented in only approximately 10% of cases,5 often necessitating alternative donor sites such as the tensor fasciae lata (TFL) or anteromedial thigh (AMT) flaps.2

The feasibility of musculocutaneous perforator-based harvesting, typically preserving a small muscle cuff,3 improved reliability and overcame early skepticism about vascular adequacy.2–4 A major advancement occurred in 2002, when Wei et al5 demonstrated that the ALT flap could be consistently elevated using either septocutaneous or musculocutaneous perforators, significantly enhancing its technical predictability in clinical practice.8

Early identification of perforators relied on handheld Doppler devices. Subsequent anatomical studies found that approximately 90% of ALT perforators are located within a 3-cm radius at the midpoint between the anterior superior iliac spine and the superolateral border of the patella.3,9 A 2004 study further refined this understanding, identifying 3 common perforator clusters along this axis: group A (5-cm proximal to the midpoint), group B (at the midpoint), and group C (5-cm distal).10

Since 2002, it has been recognized that certain perforators may also originate from the transverse branch of the LCFA, expanding the classification of perforator types to 4.11 This variation offers potential advantages, including shorter pedicle lengths and simplified dissection.12

Further anatomical refinement occurred in 2009 with the formal identification of the oblique branch, which arises between the transverse and descending branches.9,11 This variant is present in approximately 35% of patients,13 and its recognition is critical for avoiding intraoperative vascular injury and enabling selective tissue harvesting.

More recent surgical advances include pedicle lengthening by ligating the rectus femoris branch of the LCFA. This technique has been shown to increase both pedicle length and vessel diameter in approximately 64% of patients.14 Although some authors recommend preoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) or intraoperative perfusion assessment to avoid rectus femoris ischemia,15,16 the senior authors of this review report no such complications when routinely ligating the rectus branch without CTA.

COMPOSITE AND FUNCTIONAL VARIANTS

Decades of clinical and anatomical research have solidified the safety and reliability of the ALT flap, with abandonment rates now less than 1% due to the near-universal presence of suitable perforators.13

Chimeric Flap

The chimeric ALT flap was first introduced by Hallock17 in 1991 as a pedicled ALT–rectus femoris chimeric flap. This was followed in 1993 by a free ALT–AMT–iliac bone variant.18 Initially, the term “chimeric flap” was inconsistently defined, causing miscommunication in the literature. It is now accepted as a configuration combining multiple tissue components, such as muscle (eg, vastus lateralis, rectus femoris), fascia, bone, or additional skin paddles (eg, AMT, TFL), based on a single vascular pedicle.

The vastus lateralis muscle, commonly incorporated for bulk19 and vascularized coverage,9,20,21 has shown utility in tongue reconstruction when reinnervated, preserving 60%–80% of function. In the absence of suitable ALT perforators, a musculocutaneous flap based on the TFL muscle branch may be used via crossover vascularization.22 Chimeric ALT–TFL flaps, sometimes including fascia lata, have been successfully applied in lower limb tendon reconstructions.

An inverse relationship between ALT and AMT perforators allows for the design of ALT–AMT chimeric flaps when the AMT perforator arises from the rectus femoris branch of the descending branch of the LCFA,18 a pattern observed in approximately 51% of cases.23 Advances in perforator mapping have enabled the design of independent skin paddles nourished by discrete branches of the same vascular source.

In 2004, Tsai et al24 described a technique using 2 sequential long, narrow ALT paddles to facilitate donor-site closure. These paddles were later reoriented into a single, wider composite flap. This approach was later referred to as the “kiss flap”25 and essentially maximizes the size of the resulting flap and minimizes donor-site morbidity.

The osteomyocutaneous ALT chimeric flap incorporates a vascularized corticocancellous femoral segment and has been used for both limb26 and craniofacial reconstruction.27 Vascular supply is typically via the LCFA or a branch of the vastus intermedius.28 Following harvest, femoral fixation is required.29 However, further biomechanical studies remain warranted to assess long-term structural outcomes.

Adipofascial Flap

Introduced in 2003, the adipofascial ALT flap offers a large, thin, and well-vascularized tissue option without the need for aggressive defatting. This technique mitigates the risk of partial flap necrosis commonly associated with primary thinning.30

A key advantage is the ability to achieve primary donor-site closure, even with relatively large flaps, thereby eliminating the need for skin grafting.31 This approach is particularly beneficial in patients requiring thin, pliable coverage without the volume of a conventional fasciocutaneous flap.

Lymph-interpositional Flap Transfer ALT Flap

The lymph-interpositional flap transfer ALT flap is designed based on the principle of lymph axiality, enabling restoration of lymphatic flow without the need for supermicrosurgical anastomosis or lymph node transfer.32 Due to its low donor-site morbidity and ease of harvest by most microsurgeons, the ALT flap is well suited for use in lymph-interpositional flap transfer procedures. These flaps are increasingly incorporated into strategies for managing lymphedema and other lymphatic reconstruction situations, although further clinical validation is warranted.

Sensory Reinnervation

Sensory reinnervation of the ALT flap was first reported in 1999,33 initially applied in intraoral, hand, and foot reconstructions, with subsequent widespread use in tongue reconstruction. Innervated ALT flaps enhance postoperative sensory recovery and can improve functional outcomes such as swallowing.34

The lateral femoral cutaneous nerve is most commonly used for reinnervation. However, Ribuffo et al35 described 2 additional sensory branches, the superior and median perforator nerves, arising from the femoral nerve.36 Recognition of these variants is essential, as successful reinnervation depends on accurately identifying and coaptating the nerve that innervates the skin territory used for reconstruction.

VASCULAR VARIANTS

Distally Based ALT Flap

First described in 1990, the distally based ALT flap allows retrograde perfusion for reconstruction of defects around the knee.37 The flap’s pivot point is located at the junction of the descending branch of the LCFA with either the lateral superior genicular artery or the profunda femoris artery, typically 3–10 cm proximal to the patella.

To reduce the risk of venous congestion, a recognized complication with this configuration, venous supercharging is often recommended.38 If suitable perforators are not present, alternative options include the distally based AMT flap, a rectus femoris flap combined with skin grafting, or conversion to a free ALT flap.39 For smaller peripatellar defects, an antegrade-flow propeller flap based on a distal perforator has been described and integrated into knee reconstruction algorithms.40

Flow-through and Prefabricated Flaps

The flow-through ALT flap enables continuous distal blood flow by anastomosing both the proximal and distal ends of the vascular pedicle.41,42 Sometimes referred to as a “flow-through conduit flap,”43 this configuration is particularly useful for reconstructions that require simultaneous tissue coverage and vascular conduit, avoiding the need for separate end-to-side anastomosis.44

The LCFA’s robust vessel diameter supports multiple arterial reconstructions45 and is suitable for flap prefabrication. Flow-through ALT flaps can also be incorporated into chimeric designs to enhance reconstructive flexibility for complex defects.46

REFINEMENTS IN FLAP THICKNESS

Evolution of ALT Flap Primary Thinning

The need for flap thinning has emerged primarily due to differences in body habitus, particularly in Western populations, where increased subcutaneous fat complicates flap contouring.47 The first description of ALT flap thinning by Koshima et al48 in 1993 involved defatting after flap elevation.

By 1996, refinements led to selective thinning techniques that preserved a 1-cm2 zone around the perforator within the superficial fascial plane.49,50 Subsequent classification of perforator course patterns helped tailor thinning strategies based on the perforator’s intraflap trajectory.51

Experts’ recommendations vary regarding the ideal safety margin around perforators, with some advocating a 2.5- to 3-cm2 preservation zone and others recommending 2-cm2.52 Despite this variation, consensus holds that a minimum of 2 mm of subdermal fat should be maintained to preserve flap viability.47

However, primary thinning remains associated with complications, including partial or complete necrosis,53 particularly in flaps exceeding 150 cm2. A 2010 systematic review reported an increased risk in such cases.54 To improve precision, Kimura55 introduced a microdissection technique in 2002, involving the removal of fat lobules under microscopic magnification, albeit with increased operative time. Selective thinning is therefore best reserved for experienced teams and carefully selected defects.

Evolution of Harvest Planes

As an alternative to thinning, direct harvest of thinner ALT flaps from more superficial tissue planes has gained acceptance. Suprafascial dissection, which preserves a small cuff of fascia lata around the perforator, improves contour without compromising vascularity.56,57

In 2013, Hong and Chung58 proposed elevation directly along the superficial fascia plane, which preserves deep fascia and subcutaneous fat at the donor site and reduces muscular herniation and indentation. Before this, only suprafascial and subfascial plane approaches were acknowledged.59

A 2016 hybrid technique combined segments of suprafascial and superficial fascial elevation.60 In 2021, a modification exposed the superficial fascial layer by dissecting a 2- to 3-cm cylindrical corridor around the perforator from its subfascial entry point.61

Terminology has evolved in parallel. In 2017, flaps elevated on the superficial fascia were termed “superthin flaps,”62 distinguishing them from “thin flaps” raised in the suprafascial plane.63 In 2021, Yamamoto et al64 applied the pure-skin perforator concept to the ALT flap using a distal-to-proximal dissection strategy. In 2023, “ultrathin flaps” were described for cases in which even a superthin flap was considered excessive, using a plane above the superficial fascia.65 Plane-based elevation offers reproducible contour with preserved perfusion and lower donor-site morbidity.

NOVEL APPLICATIONS AND IMAGING

Unconventional Applications of the ALT Flap

The ALT flap remains highly adaptable for complex reconstructions. In penile reconstruction, it can be tailored to defect requirements and, when indicated, combined with erectile penile implants or structural support using bone to optimize form and function.66 In perineal reconstruction, a “keyhole” design allows coverage of the perineum while accommodating urethral voiding through a central full-thickness opening; similar principles have been applied to resurfacing of the thumb and penis.67 The flap’s pliability and reliable vascularity also support voice restoration following cervical esophageal reconstruction.68 Beyond soft tissue defects, the ALT flap provides durable coverage for exposed critical structures, including the heart and major vessels,68 and for cranioplasty hardware. In thoracic surgery, de-epithelialized musculocutaneous ALT flaps have been used to obliterate residual cavities in chronic empyema.69 Collectively, these characteristics make the ALT flap a reliable and safe option for the microsurgeons, enabling reconstruction of challenging defects while preserving both form and function, even for younger surgeons early in their practice.

ALT Flaps and Cutting-edge Imaging Technology

Advances in imaging have improved preoperative planning and intraoperative safety. Color-duplex ultrasonography enables precise perforator mapping within the ALT territory and facilitates safer thinning strategies.70,71 Thermography can complement ultrasound by identifying cutaneous “hot spots,” reducing examination time and guiding incision planning.72 CTA is informative but, based on current evidence, does not warrant routine use for all patients.73 Extended-reality tools, including augmented and mixed reality, as well as virtual planning, are being explored to enhance perforator visualization and guide dissection.74,75 Although early reports are promising, prospective clinical studies are needed to determine effects on operative efficiency, complication rates, and cost-effectiveness. Pending such data, selective use is appropriate when it is expected to change management.

DISCUSSION

Over 4 decades, the ALT flap has progressed from a fasciocutaneous coverage option to a modular reconstructive platform (Figs. 2, 3). Its evolution can be summarized along 4 axes: composition-driven variants (skin, fascia, muscle, bone, and lymphatics); vascular adaptations such as flow-through designs and prefabrication; refinement of thickness through plane-based elevation (suprafascial or superficial-fascia “superthin”) instead of indiscriminate defatting; and broadening indications supported by routine preoperative perforator mapping. These developments build on attributes repeatedly documented in large series and reviews, including reliable pedicle anatomy, adaptable tissue composition, and generally favorable donor-site morbidity, which together have established the ALT flap as a workhorse flap worldwide.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Open in a new tab

Timeline with the most important advancements in the knowledge of anatomy.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Open in a new tab

Timeline with the most important advancements in ALT flap evolution.

The clinical consequences are tangible and are summarized in Table 1. In head and neck reconstruction, thin or superthin ALT flaps provide reliable resurfacing with acceptable donor-site outcomes and are commonly selected when a pliable skin paddle is preferred to the radial forearm flap. When indicated, sensory coaptation may enhance protective sensibility. In extremity reconstruction, thinning strategies help preserve tendon gliding while maintaining durable coverage. For complex resurfacing requirements, multiple skin paddles based on a single pedicle are well described. The flap’s predictable vascular territory and the feasibility of 2-team harvest are practical advantages that support efficient workflows in many centers.

Table 1.

Key Milestones in the Evolution of the ALT Flap and Their Clinical Relevance

Year (Approximately) Milestone/Innovation Principle Advanced Clinical Relevance
1984 Original description of the “free thigh flap” (ALT) Septocutaneous concept Introduced a long-pedicle fasciocutaneous flap with low donor-site morbidity
1989–2002 Musculocutaneous perforator recognition; retrograde intramuscular dissection Perforator‑based elevation Greatly increased reliability and harvest feasibility while minimizing muscle sacrifice
1990 Distally based pedicled ALT Reverse flow to expand pedicled flap reach Local solution for knee/proximal leg; venous supercharging strategies mitigate congestion risk
1991–1993 Chimeric/composite constructs Multitissue design on 1 pedicle Enables single-stage 3-dimensional composite reconstruction
1996–2002 Early thinning techniques Contour optimization by selective debulking Facilitated primary reconstruction with reduced need for secondary debulking
1997 Flow‑through and conduit concepts Vascular reconstruction with maintained runoff Simultaneous soft‑tissue coverage and arterial gap management while preserving distal flow
1999 Sensory reinnervation of ALT Sensory functionality Established the ALT as a sensate flap for selected indications
2002 Suprafascial elevation; microdissection Flap plane selection and precise thinning Improved contour with reduced donor‑site morbidity
2003 Adipofascial ALT Thin vascularized tissue for improved contouring Provides thin, pliable tissue with a high likelihood of primary closure
2004 Multipaddle and “kiss” designs Geometry optimization; donor-site preservation Allows complex large-area resurfacing while facilitating primary donor‑site closure
2013 Superficial‑fascia (“superthin”) elevation Flap plane selection Reliable ultrapliable coverage with a favorable donor-site profile
2018 LIFT ALT applications Lymph axiality Restores lymph flow in select reconstructions without supermicrosurgical anastomosis
2021–2023 “Ultrathin” flap and pure skin perforator flap Flap plane selection Achieves maximal thinness where contour is critical while preserving perfusion
2022 Imaging and digital planning (US/CDUS, thermography, selective CTA; AR/VR/MR) Technology integration for precision and safety Enables faster perforator mapping, reduces intraoperative uncertainty, and may assist navigation during perforator dissection
Open in a new tab

AR/VR/MR, augmented/virtual/mixed reality; CDUS, color-duplex ultrasonography; LIFT, lymph-interpositional flap transfer; US, ultrasound.

Important limitations remain. Primary thinning can reduce vascular reserve and impair wound healing, which may not be acceptable in oncological settings where postoperative complications could delay adjuvant therapy. Thinning is technically demanding and may be unreliable in selected cases because subcutaneous perforators are delicate and the vascular anatomy can be unfavorable. Distally based pedicled ALT flap configurations carry a meaningful risk of venous congestion; venous supercharging is often recommended in such cases. Future directions are likely to be shaped by several emerging developments.

Ongoing work will focus on optimizing imaging, artificial intelligence platforms, and printing techniques, and on evaluating their impact on operative efficiency, team confidence, and clinical outcomes. In this regard, imaging-integrated planning that combines routine color-duplex ultrasonography with standardized mapping protocols, selective CTA when indicated, and intraoperative real-time perfusion assessment, such as indocyanine green angiography, may reduce exploration time and ischemic complications.

Moreover, extended-reality overlays and image-guided navigation for perforator dissection may shorten learning curves and promote standardization of suprafascial and superficial-fascia plane selection; multicenter evaluations are needed to define clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Building on these technological advances, artificial intelligence–enabled planning could further support perforator selection and target flap thickness for a given defect and habitus, although prospective studies will be required before routine adoption.

In parallel, robotic assistance in microsurgery emerges as a promising innovation, offering enhanced precision and tremor reduction, particularly in supermicrosurgery. Although ergonomic and spatial challenges remain, its potential is considerable, and robot-assisted surgery may represent the future for surgeons performing ALT flap and other microvascular procedures, highlighting the need for structured training in both robotic and conventional techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Forty years after its introduction, the ALT flap provides benefits that clearly outweigh its limitations. Its reliable vascular anatomy, modular design, and favorable donor-site profile have secured a central role in contemporary reconstructive practice. Continued progress in imaging, navigation, and data-driven planning is expected to refine indications, reduce complications, and sustain the ALT flap’s impact in microsurgery.

DISCLOSURE

The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.

PATIENT CONSENT

Written informed consent was obtained from the legally authorized representative(s) for publication of anonymized patient information in this article.

ETHICAL APPROVAL

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975, as revised in 2008.

Footnotes

Published online 22 June 2026.

Disclosure statements are at the end of this article, following the correspondence information.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Song YG, Chen GZ, Song YL. The free thigh flap: a new free flap concept based on the septocutaneous artery. Br J Plast Surg. 1984;37:149–159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Koshima I, Fukuda H, Utunomiya R, et al. The antero-lateral thigh flap; variations in its vascular pedicle. Br J Plast Surg. 1989;42:260–262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Xu DC, Zhong SZ, Kong JM, et al. Applied anatomy of the anterolateral femoral flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1988;82:305–310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Zhou G, Qiao Q, Chen GY, et al. Clinical experience and surgical anatomy of 32 free anterolateral thigh flap transplantations. Br J Plast Surg. 1991;44:91–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wei FC, Jain V, Celik N, et al. Have we found an ideal soft-tissue flap? An experience with 672 anterolateral thigh flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109:2219–26; discussion 2227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Wei FC, Mardini S. Free-style free flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114:910–916. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mardini S, Tsai FC, Wei FC. The thigh as a model for free style free flaps. Clin Plast Surg. 2003;30:473–480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chen HC, Tang YB. Anterolateral thigh flap: an ideal soft tissue flap. Clin Plast Surg. 2003;30:383–401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kimata Y, Uchiyama K, Ebihara S, et al. Anatomic variations and technical problems of the anterolateral thigh flap: a report of 74 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102:1517–1523. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Yu P, Youssef A. Efficacy of the handheld Doppler in preoperative identification of the cutaneous perforators in the anterolateral thigh flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118:928–933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Shieh SJ, Chiu HY, Yu JC, et al. Free anterolateral thigh flap for reconstruction of head and neck defects following cancer ablation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:2349–2357; discussion 2358. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kuo YR, Seng-Feng J, Kuo FM, et al. Versatility of the free anterolateral thigh flap for reconstruction of soft-tissue defects: review of 140 cases. Ann Plast Surg. 2002;48:161–166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wong CH, Wei FC, Fu B, et al. Alternative vascular pedicle of the anterolateral thigh flap: the oblique branch of the lateral circumflex femoral artery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:571–577. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wong CH, Ong YS, Wei FC. Revisiting vascular supply of the rectus femoris and its relevance in the harvest of the anterolateral thigh flap. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;71:586–590. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ribuffo D, Atzeni M, Saba L, et al. Angio computed tomography preoperative evaluation for anterolateral thigh flap harvesting. Ann Plast Surg. 2009;62:368–371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Maruccia M, Di Taranto G, Nicoli F, et al. Rectus femoris muscle necrosis: an underrated donor-site complication of free anterolateral thigh flap. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70:972–974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hallock GG. Simultaneous transposition of anterior thigh muscle and fascia flaps: an introduction to the chimera flap principle. Ann Plast Surg. 1991;27:126–131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Koshima I, Hosoda M, Moriguchi T, et al. A combined anterolateral thigh flap, anteromedial thigh flap, and vascularized iliac bone graft for a full-thickness defect of the mental region. Ann Plast Surg. 1993;31:175–180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Woo SH, Kim YC, Jeong WS, et al. Three-dimensional analysis of flap volume change in total tongue reconstruction: focus on reinnervated dynamic tongue reconstruction. J Craniofac Surg. 2023;34:2056–2060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lee YJ, Kim J, Lee CR, et al. Anterolateral thigh chimeric flap: an alternative reconstructive option to free flaps for large soft tissue defects. J Clin Med. 2023;12:6723. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lin YT, Lin CH, Wei FC. More degrees of freedom by using chimeric concept in the applications of anterolateral thigh flap. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59:622–627. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Nahai F, Silverton JS, Hill HL, et al. The tensor fascia lata musculocutaneous flap. Ann Plast Surg. 1978;1:372–379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Yu P, Selber J. Perforator patterns of the anteromedial thigh flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:151e–157e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tsai FC, Yang JY, Mardini S, et al. Free split-cutaneous perforator flaps procured using a three-dimensional harvest technique for the reconstruction of postburn contracture defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:185–193; discussion 194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zhang YX, Hayakawa TJ, Levin LS, et al. The economy in autologous tissue transfer: part 1. The kiss flap technique. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:1018–1030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Acartürk TO. Femur-vastus intermedius-anterolateral thigh osteomyocutaneous composite chimeric free flap: a new free flap for the reconstruction of complex wounds. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2011;27:187–194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Brody RM, Pandey NC, Bur AM, et al. Anterior lateral thigh osteomyocutaneous free flap reconstruction in the head and neck: the anterolateral thigh osteomyocutaneous femur bone flap. Head Neck. 2016;38:1788–1793. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Yu JW, Frey JD, Thanik VD, et al. The rich get richer: osseous chimeric versatility to the anterolateral thigh flap. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2020;36:171–176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Worley ML, Patterson TM, Graboyes EM, et al. Association of the anterolateral thigh osteomyocutaneous flap with femur structural integrity and assessment of prophylactic fixation. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;144:769–775. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hsieh CH, Yang CC, Kuo YR, et al. Free anterolateral thigh adipofascial perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112:976–982. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Chang C, Rodriguez-Mantilla I, Herrera AC, et al. Donor site in anterolateral thigh (ALT) free flaps: a systematic review of closure techniques and introduction of a management algorithm. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2025;105:243–259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Yamamoto T, Iida T, Yoshimatsu H, et al. Lymph flow restoration after tissue replantation and transfer: importance of lymph axiality and possibility of lymph flow reconstruction without lymph node transfer or lymphatic anastomosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142:796–804. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kimata Y, Uchiyama K, Ebihara S, et al. Comparison of innervated and noninnervated free flaps in oral reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104:1307–1313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Baas M, Duraku LS, Corten EM, et al. A systematic review on the sensory reinnervation of free flaps for tongue reconstruction: does improved sensibility imply functional benefits? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68:1025–1035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ribuffo D, Cigna E, Gargano F, et al. The innervated anterolateral thigh flap: anatomical study and clinical implications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;115:464–470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Rohen JW, Yokochi C, Lütjen-Drecoll E. Color Atlas of Anatomy, 4th ed. F.K. Schattauer Verlagsgesellschaft mbH; 1998:450–453. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zhang G. Reversed anterolateral thigh island flap and myocutaneous flap transplantation. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 1990;70:676–678, 46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Gravvanis A, Britto JA. Venous augmentation of distally based pedicled ALT flap to reconstruct the tibial tuberosity in a severely injured leg. Ann Plast Surg. 2009;62:290–292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Du Q, Liu Y, Zang M, et al. Distally based anterolateral thigh flap algorithm for unexpected situations during soft-tissue defect reconstruction around the knee. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024;153:728–738. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wong CH, Goh T, Tan BK, et al. The anterolateral thigh perforator flap for reconstruction of knee defects. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70:337–342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ao M, Nagase Y, Mae O, et al. Reconstruction of posttraumatic defects of the foot by flow-through anterolateral or anteromedial thigh flaps with preservation of posterior tibial vessels. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;38:598–603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Georgescu AV, Corpodean A, Matei IR. A new understanding of “flow-through” concept in flaps surgery and review of the literature. J Orthop Rep. 2023;2:100218. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Fernandez-Garrido M, Lopez Penha TR, Qiu SS. Flow-through flaps in the absence of an arterial gap for extremity defect reconstruction: minimizing the donor-site morbidity. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2019;35:329–334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Miyamoto S, Fujiki M, Nakatani F, et al. Free flow-through anterolateral thigh flap for complex knee defect including the popliteal artery. Microsurgery. 2015;35:485–488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Koshima I, Yamamoto H, Moriguchi T, et al. Extended anterior thigh flaps for repair of massive cervical defects involving pharyngoesophagus and skin: an introduction to the “mosaic” flap principle. Ann Plast Surg. 1994;32:321–327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Huang WC, Chen HC, Wei FC, et al. Chimeric flap in clinical use. Clin Plast Surg. 2003;30:457–467. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Agostini T, Lazzeri D, Spinelli G. Anterolateral thigh flap thinning: techniques and complications. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72:246–252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Koshima I, Fukuda H, Yamamoto H, et al. Free anterolateral thigh flaps for reconstruction of head and neck defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993;92:421–428; discussion 429. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Kimura N, Satoh K. Consideration of a thin flap as an entity and clinical applications of the thin anterolateral thigh flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;97:985–992. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kimura N, Satoh K, Hasumi T, et al. Clinical application of the free thin anterolateral thigh flap in 31 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108:1197–1208; discussion 1209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Rajacic N, Gang RK, Krishnan J, et al. Thin anterolateral thigh free flap. Ann Plast Surg. 2002;48:252–257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Huang CH, Chen HC, Huang YL, et al. Comparison of the radial forearm flap and the thinned anterolateral thigh cutaneous flap for reconstruction of tongue defects: an evaluation of donor-site morbidity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114:1704–1710. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Ross GL, Dunn R, Kirkpatrick J, et al. To thin or not to thin: the use of the anterolateral thigh flap in the reconstruction of intraoral defects. Br J Plast Surg. 2003;56:409–413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Sharabi SE, Hatef DA, Koshy JC, et al. Is primary thinning of the anterolateral thigh flap recommended? Ann Plast Surg. 2010;65:555–559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Kimura N. A microdissected thin tensor fasciae latae perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109:69–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Yang JY, Tsai FC, Chana JS, et al. Use of free thin anterolateral thigh flaps combined with cervicoplasty for reconstruction of postburn anterior cervical contractures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;110:39–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Maruccia M, Fallico N, Cigna E, et al. Suprafascial versus traditional harvesting technique for free antero lateral thigh flap: a case-control study to assess the best functional and aesthetic result in extremity reconstruction. Microsurgery. 2017;37:851–857. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Hong JP, Chung IW. The superficial fascia as a new plane of elevation for anterolateral thigh flaps. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70:192–195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Celik N, Wei FC, Lin CH, et al. Technique and strategy in anterolateral thigh perforator flap surgery, based on an analysis of 15 complete and partial failures in 439 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109:2211–2216; discussion 2217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Chen YC, Scaglioni MF, Carrillo Jimenez LE, et al. Suprafascial anterolateral thigh flap harvest: a better way to minimize donor-site morbidity in head and neck reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:689–698. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Innocenti M, Calabrese S, Tanini S, et al. A safer way to harvest a superthin perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147:466–469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Seth AK, Iorio ML. Super-thin and suprafascial anterolateral thigh perforator flaps for extremity reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2017;33:466–473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Diamond S, Seth AK, Chattha AS, et al. Outcomes of subfascial, suprafascial, and super-thin anterolateral thigh flaps: tailoring thickness without added morbidity. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2018;34:176–184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Yamamoto T, Yamamoto N, Fuse Y, et al. Subdermal dissection for elevation of pure skin perforator flaps and superthin flaps: the dermis as a landmark for the most superficial dissection plane. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147:470–478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Cha HG, Hur J, Ahn C, et al. Ultrathin anterolateral thigh free flap: an adipocutaneous flap with the most superficial elevation plane. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023;152:718e–723e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Felici N, Felici A. A new phalloplasty technique: the free anterolateral thigh flap phalloplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59:153–157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Sirimahachaiyakul P, Orfaniotis G, Gesakis K, et al. Keyhole anterolateral thigh flap: a special way of partition for reconstruction around a protruding structure or cavity/tunnel. Microsurgery. 2015;35:356–363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Maruccia M, Orfaniotis G, Ciudad P, et al. Application of extended bi-pedicle anterolateral thigh free flaps for reconstruction of large defects: a case series. Microsurgery. 2018;38:26–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Tsai FC, Chen HC, Chen SH, et al. Free deepithelialized anterolateral thigh myocutaneous flaps for chronic intractable empyema with bronchopleural fistula. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;74:1038–1042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Visconti G, Bianchi A, Hayashi A, et al. Designing an anterolateral thigh flap using ultrasound. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2022;38:206–216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Moore R, Mullner D, Nichols G, et al. Color Doppler ultrasound versus computed tomography angiography for preoperative anterolateral thigh flap perforator imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2022;38:563–570. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Illg C, Krauss S, Rothenberger J, et al. Air flow cooling improves anterolateral thigh perforator mapping using the FLIR ONE thermal camera. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2022;38:144–150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Ulas Bali Z, Keçeci Y, Pabuşcu Y, et al. Anterolateral thigh flap design by using suprafascial course of the perforator. Ann Plast Surg. 2020;84:550–553. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Tang Y, Guo Q, Li X, et al. Augmented reality-assisted systematic mapping of anterolateral thigh perforators. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022;23:1047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Heredero S, Falguera MI, Marín A, et al. Virtual planning and mixed reality for the thin anterolateral thigh perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2022;10:e4567. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES