Understanding the Tibial Pedal Anatomy: Practical Points for Clinical Presentation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Understanding the Tibial Pedal Anatomy: Practical Points for Clinical Presentation Vlad A. ALEXANDRESCU MD, PhD. Consultant Vascular Surgeon C.H.U. Sart-Tilman Hospital, University of Liège, Belgium. Disclosures • No disclosures No brand names are included in this presentation. No product promotion is inferred. The Vascular Anatomy of the Leg (91% Dominant patterns, 9% Variations): Calf: Foot: Closely related to the muscular compartments & skin distribution. 4 Compartments , 9 compartments , 3 individual vasc. bundles. > 16 dedicated bundles. Practical perspective: • Inf. Limb encloses: Harmonic vascular distribution, and holds • Graduated dichotomy => Increases the sectional area of distal flow ! • The Cross-section of two branches > than the surface of initial trunk, • Anatomical variations: do follow this balanced 3D topography! No random blood distribution (Dorsal / Plantar Territ.) ! See the main tibial tr TheThe Anteriormain Tibial Tibialand &PedalDorsalisarterialPedis trunks:line of flow : • Originates: At the Interosseus Membrane’s / The “Hook”, • Courses : within the anterior compartment of the lower leg & foot , • At the Extensor’s Retinaculum : => Transitions to the pedal flow , => A zone of fixity & blustery flow ! • Terminates / 1st. MT space => branching the Arcuate artery, & creates => the 1st. Dorsal MT artery & => the Deep Plantar artery. • All 3 => Large collat. (around 1 mm) > 80 ml /min. flow • Noted : +/- 9% Anatomical Variations , Same Harmonious distribution / the anterior Leg & Foot, For these cases: the Dorsal Arches derive mainly => Peroneal artery / only exceptionally from the PT ! Practical points : The posterior v vLargeSmallerDP collat.native: L collatat. Tarsal. : Med.arteries Tarsal(1 collat.mm) => (often connect < 0.5 ATmm) , Lat. Plantar circulation (PT flow) ! Correct healing at 3 months, v Can rarely compensate the plantar flow without Plantar - Directed Revascularization ! => may enhance correct healing for lateral foot wounds => via Indirect Revascularization ! via large (1mm) collaterals. Incomplete healing at 5 months, via these small collaterals. The Posterior Tibial & Plantar line of flow. : • Courses: the Deep Post. calf Compartment , • The Flexor’s Retinaculum => specific shear-stress zone : => Possible endothelial injuries by blowy flow , => A transition zone to the fixed plantar circulation ! • Bifurcates: Medial & Lateral Plantar aa. , • The Lat. Plant. a => large branch (1.5 mm.) & Creates the “deep” Plantar Arch and receives: the Deep Plantar Artery (from DP) => Important link / Wound - Oriented - Revasc via the “Arches Flow System” ! • Described : +/- 5% Anatomical Variations (mainly / Plantar level) 95% of these cases : the PT arises from the Peroneal ! (almost never directly from the AT) ! Flexion Extension Practical points : 1.2.3. The UsefulThe F IElexor’snterossxtensor’sfor the Reetinaculumus IRnterventionistMetinaculumembrane’szonezonepassage=>=> predict=> => difficult CTO recanalization strategy ! ++ Cited: Three “Challenging Zones” / Tibial flow concerning shear-stress + occlusions & heavy Ca : Concerning the Anterior Tibial artery , Concerning the Posterior Tibial artery , Alexandrescu V. et al. Angiosomes, a reliable approach. J Endovasc Ther. 2011. See the Peroneal Concerning the Anterior Tibial & Dors. Pedis junction , The Peroneal Artery : • Supplies: the Lateral Compartment of the leg, • Despite traveling : Deep Post. Compartment , • Ends => superficially / Lat. Calc. Branch (terminal-type branch, affords 30% / heel perfusion) , • Generates two important collaterals: The Ant. & Post. Communicants linked to the Ant. & Post. Tibial aa, • The Peroneal a. => provides effective rescue supply => R4 CLTI presentations. => questionable utility for salvage reperfusion / R5 forefoot angiosomes + wounds ! PT. AT. Practical points : ++ § Peroneal a. holds: Lesser Ca => Higher technical feasibility ! § However: modest=> support often named:(as single the - “patentBest A rteryvessel)” to in treat preserv / DFing context. => R5 - R6 , § In rare cases, both => FAorefootnt. & Post.& m idC-ommunicantsfoot CLI lesions. may> provide good filing / arches ! The foot AG 5. The foot Anatomical Angiosomes4. & their collateral system : 6. 1. 3. 2. PT. Peroneal AT. (6) Postulated 30 Y ago> 1987 / J. Taylor => described 6 specific foot AGs ! 3=> PT, 2=> Peroneal, 1=> ATa. The Major role of Collaterals in the AG concept : § Neighboring AG linked => vast connection system: the “Choke - vessels” & the a-a. collateral network. § Even with (9% ) anatomical variations : the foot maintains a distinct Dorsal & Plantar collateral distribution ! § CLTI may distort “classical” AG-collateral borders ! § Important to assess: angiographic “visible” or “dormant” collaterals => may enable to orient reperfusion: intentional Wound Directed Revascularization ! Taylor J. Taylor J. AG collaterals are structured on “3- Levels” => “The C-V, the a-a comm, & the Cut. Perforating Arteries” / described (Taylor 2010) , “AllRecent these “controversies” branches have concerning topographicT opographic limb distribution - skin” panderforators completedistribution: the much as wider “independent“Circulatory AG / Physiological branches” - AG”, also “may explain” Pedal Arches : The “True redeemers” of the ischemic foot ! • ”The integrity of Dorsal & Plantar Arches => paramount importance for forefoot and mid-foot tissue recovery.” • Arches afford “Wound Targeted Revasc.” either via : “antegrade” , or “retrograde” perfusion ! § Both Foot arches => closely interconnected by : a) 4 Proximal & 4 Distal Perforating Arteries (half mm / diameter) , b) by The important Deep Plantar Artery / from the DP (high-volume, 1mm collat.) largely used via current “loop technique” + c) &by The Lateral & Medial Tarsal Arteries (half mm branches) , Arches Reperfusion => confirms / does not deny => Topographic Revascularization strategy ! Patent The arches topographic afford equivalent role of arches Healingwas revealedand by manyLimb AuthorsSalvage ” in results Surgicalas seriesDirect (Rashid)“AG” r evasc or Endovascularaccording to Zheng (/Osawa (500p.- )study)analyses ! The ForeFoot & Toes perfusion : • The Forefoot lesions : => About 37% of all / R. 5-6 presentations What this imply => Represent a crossroad of 3 AG (1 Dorsal & 2 Plantars) ! § Patency of Arches and Digital Arteries : => crucial / Forefoot healing ! => Best achieved since : > 2 Digital collaterals are permeable ! either by : Partial Digital aa. Thrombosis , What this implies in practical terms ? Toes necrosis / inevitable => since Thrombosis of > half digital collaterals occurs ! Complete (all 4) Digital aa. Occlusions ! &Complete Digital + Arches Thrombosis ! & The Hind-Foot & Heel collaterals: PT. Peron. • The Heel: owns specific “terminal - type” vascularization ! • Only 2 “Source- arteries” => PT. + Peroneal aa. • No direct a-a communicants, => the “Scarcest Collateral Zone” of the foot ! • Heel flow => Mainly relies on PT. (>70%) perfusion ! => No specific AT. connections ! Poor recovery by sole DP. reperfusion, The Highest Risk of amputation for R6 lesions ! Conclusion Thorough anatomical reevaluation of scattered tibial, pedal and collateral flow, may reword the committed clinician in topographic reperfusion of the lower limb, The Vascular Anatomy canwith be impressive strongly tissue’sdistortedhealingin the resultsmajority ! of CLTI presentations ! however THANK YOU ! The essential of this presentation, was reproduced in the appended article :.