Vastus Lateralis (VL) Flap
The pedicled vastus lateralis and the combined anterolateral thigh + vastus lateralis (ALT-VL) flap together form a bulky, reliable pedicled option for urologic reconstruction when VRAM is unavailable, when bilateral reach is needed, or when the defect demands maximal muscle volume for dead-space obliteration. Both are based on the same lateral circumflex femoral artery (LCFA) system that supplies the ALT, which means the VL can be harvested alone, combined with an ALT skin paddle (chimeric), or as a muscle-sparing segmental variant — each tailored to the reconstructive need.
See the overview article: Flaps in GU Reconstruction. Related pages: Anterolateral Thigh (ALT) Flap, Gracilis Flap, VRAM.
Anatomy and Vascular Supply
The vastus lateralis is the largest component of the quadriceps, originating from the greater trochanter and lateral lip of the linea aspera and inserting into the quadriceps tendon.
Dominant Pedicle — Descending Branch of the LCFA
The same pedicle that supplies the ALT flap:[4][5][6]
| Feature | Value |
|---|---|
| Artery | Descending branch of the lateral circumflex femoral artery |
| Mean arterial diameter | 2.1 mm (range 2.0–2.5 mm) |
| Pedicle length (to LCFA origin) | Mean 56.8 mm; up to 8–20 cm with proximal dissection |
| Pedicle entry (from pubic symphysis) | ~119 mm distal |
| Pedicle entry (from greater trochanter) | ~156 mm |
| Venae comitantes | Paired, 2.5–4 mm caliber |
Accessory Pedicles
- Proximal minor pedicles — ascending and transverse branches of the LCFA, mean 1.8–2.0 mm diameter.[4]
- Distal minor pedicles — three large branches from the deep femoral artery, 7.9–15.4 cm proximal to the patella (2.2–2.8 mm), providing the anatomic basis for distally based VL flaps.[7]
Segmental Anatomy
The vastus lateralis has three distinct anatomical partitions with constant segmental neurovascular supply, enabling muscle-sparing or segmental harvest.[5] This is the anatomic basis for the "just-enough-muscle" technique that preserves function at the donor site.
Motor Innervation
Femoral nerve branch enters the muscle approximately 195 mm from the ASIS.[4] Preservation matters for donor-site quadriceps function.
GU Reconstructive Applications
The VL / ALT-VL toolkit covers six principal urologic indications:[1][2][3][8][9]
- Scrotal reconstruction — Fournier's gangrene, scrotal trauma, scrotal oncology
- Perineal reconstruction — APR, pelvic exenteration, extensive radiation wounds
- Bladder reconstruction — posttraumatic bladder wall + overlying soft-tissue coverage
- Penile reconstruction and penoscrotal coverage
- Groin defects with exposed femoral vessels
- Vaginal reconstruction after oncologic resection
When VL-MC Is Preferred Over ALT-FC (Fasciocutaneous) Alone[1]
- Deep defects requiring dead-space obliteration
- Contaminated wounds benefiting from well-vascularized muscle
- Bladder reconstruction — the muscle undersurface substitutes for missing bladder wall
- Exposed vital structures (femoral vessels, testes, urethra)
- Large surface-area defects (>100 cm²)
Flap Selection Algorithm for Lower Abdominal, Perineal, and Groin (LAPG) Reconstruction[1]
| Defect characteristics | Preferred flap | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Superficial, small–moderate size | ALT-FC (fasciocutaneous) | Thin, pliable, minimal donor morbidity |
| Moderate depth, moderate size | ALT-MC (myocutaneous with muscle cuff) | Additional bulk, reliable perfusion |
| Deep defects, large size, dead space | VL-MC (vastus lateralis myocutaneous) | Maximum bulk, dead-space obliteration |
| Bladder reconstruction | VL-MC | Muscle undersurface as bladder-wall substitute |
| Exposed femoral vessels | Chimeric ALT + VL | Muscle wraps vessels, skin provides closure |
| Pelvic exenteration | ALT-VL composite | Fills pelvic dead space, prevents herniation |
Bladder Reconstruction
The pedicled VL-MC flap is an established option for posttraumatic bladder reconstruction combined with lower abdominal / perineal coverage.[2]
Principle: the undersurface of the vastus lateralis substitutes for the missing bladder wall; the remaining muscle and subcutaneous fat provide bulk to obliterate dead space and cover the external defect.
Wu 2010 series (4 patients):[2]
- No major complications
- Intact bladders on postop cystogram
- 3 of 4 (75%) voiding normally within 1 year
Urinary leak rate across 22 ALT-based LAPG reconstructions (including bladder cases) was 3 leaks, all managed conservatively.[1]
Scrotal, Penile, and Perineoscrotal Reconstruction
Fournier's Gangrene and Major Scrotal Defects
Regional ALT/ALT-VL flaps produce excellent aesthetic and functional results:[11][12][13][14]
- Flap survival: 100% in most series
- Natural scrotal contour with adequate testicular coverage
- Preserved sexual function — IIEF scores unchanged
- Minor posterior perineal wound dehiscence in ~30% due to fecal contamination, typically heals secondarily
Systematic Review of Fournier Reconstruction (619 Patients, 625 Flaps)[15]
- Flap loss: only 1.6%
- Most common flaps: medial thigh, pudendal thigh, ALT, gracilis
- Regional flaps strongly preferred over free tissue transfer
- Primary indications: coverage of exposed vital structures (52%), functional restoration (39%), cosmesis (4%)
Penile Suspensory Ligament Reconstruction[16]
A composite ALT flap including fascia lata can reconstruct the penile suspensory ligament after Fournier's gangrene, restoring erection orientation and sexual intercourse function.
Pelvic Exenteration — ALT-VL as a VRAM Alternative
The ALT-VL composite is a valuable alternative to VRAM when the rectus abdominis is unavailable (prior TRAM/DIEP, vessel ligation, stoma placement constraints) or insufficient for a very large defect.[8]
Delivery Routes[8]
- Inguinal route — VL tunneled over the inguinal ligament into the pelvis when the perineal defect is small enough for primary closure.
- Perineal route — ALT-VL tunneled over the medial thigh to the defect when perineal-vaginal reconstruction is required in the same operation.
- Bilateral approach — one flap via each route for very large defects.
Wong 2009 Series (18 Patients, All With Preoperative Chemoradiation)[8]
- Flap failure: 1 case (5.6%) — pedicle tension in an obese patient with short thigh
- Perineal wound dehiscence: 5 cases (28%), all healed spontaneously
- No hernias
- Contraindication: obese patients with short thighs (pedicle tension risk)
Comparative APR Reconstruction Evidence
| Study | n | Comparison | Key finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pang 2014[21] | 19 (10 ALT, 9 VRAM) | ALT vs VRAM | No significant differences in infection, hematoma, bleeding, necrosis, or LOS |
| Galbraith 2023[22] | 122 (40 APR, 70 exenteration) | VRAM vs gluteal vs thigh (ALT + gracilis) | Comparable outcomes across flap types; flap closure had lower infection than primary despite higher RT rates |
| Nelson 2009 (MD Anderson)[23] | 133 | VRAM vs thigh flaps | VRAM had significantly fewer major complications (15% vs 42%), lower pelvic abscess (6% vs 32%), less major wound dehiscence (5% vs 21%) |
| Johnstone 2017 meta-analysis[24] | Pooled | VRAM vs gluteal vs gracilis | Overall perineal complication rate 35.8% VRAM vs 43.7% gluteal vs 52.9% gracilis (p = 0.041) |
The Nelson and Johnstone data favor VRAM when the rectus is available; the Pang and Galbraith data show that ALT-VL is a reasonable alternative with comparable outcomes when VRAM is not feasible. The decision is increasingly defect- and donor-site-dependent rather than dogmatic.
Transabdominal-Pelvic-Perineal (TAPP) ALT-VL — di Summa 2016[25]
A novel technique for massive anteroposterior defects after extended APR + sacrectomy: the ALT + VL flap is delivered transabdominally through the pelvis to the perineum.
- 6 patients with high-grade tumors invading perineum, pelvis, and sacrum
- 1 partial flap necrosis; no late fistulas or perineal hernias
- No significant flap atrophy on serial CT volumetric analysis
- The fascia lata component supports the pelvic floor
- Donor-site recovery uneventful with no functional deficits
Vulvar / Vaginal Reconstruction
- Gentileschi 2017 — ALT (with VL muscle for dead-space filling) is a first-line option for complex vulvar cancer defects. 15 patients, 16 flaps (12 × 8 to 22 × 15 cm; pedicle 9–15 cm); no flap necrosis; 3 partial wound dehiscences healed with dressings; global performance and pain scores improved postoperatively.[26]
- Wong & Sbitany 2020 — free ALT for posterior vaginal-wall reconstruction after APR with rectovaginal fistula in 2 female patients; 100% flap survival.[27]
- The VL is also among the musculocutaneous flap options listed by Höckel and Dornhöfer for vulvovaginal reconstruction, though less commonly used than gracilis or VRAM for this indication.[28]
Phalloplasty and Urethral Reconstruction
The pedicled ALT (incorporating VL) is an established alternative to the radial forearm free flap for total phalloplasty, particularly in gender-affirming surgery and bladder exstrophy:
- D'Arpa 2019 — 93 ALT phalloplasties (largest series). Urethral reconstruction by tube-in-tube (5.8% of cases), combined with SCIP flap (40.9%), or radial forearm flap (31.2%). Eventually 91.9% voided while standing.[29]
- Harris 2021 — bladder exstrophy: 5 patients underwent pedicled ALT phalloplasty; all flaps survived, but 4/4 survivors required later debulking. RFFF preferred when feasible; ALT acceptable when forearm is overly thin.[30]
- Morrison 2014 "mushroom flap" — a tube-in-tube ALT design with a semicircular extension creates a neoglans with natural anatomic landmarks, enabling single-stage neophallus + neoglans + neourethra construction without microsurgery.[31]
- Ozkan 2009 prefabricated ALT — pedicled ALT prefabricated with skin graft for full-thickness urethral reconstruction; durable coverage and patent tube passage.[32]
See the ALT page for the full phalloplasty workflow including ALT vs RFFF head-to-head comparisons.
Large Perineal Defects — Combined ALT + VL Flap
For defects >100 cm² (average 182 cm² in the di Summa series):[3]
- Flap necrosis: 4.5% (1/22)
- Partial necrosis: 1 case (venous congestion)
- Peripheral wound dehiscence: 27% (managed with debridement ± STSG)
- 100% long-term satisfactory coverage at mean 14-month follow-up
- No functional deficits
Risk factors for complications: larger defect size, preoperative radiotherapy (significantly prolongs hospital stay).
Surgical Technique
Standard Pedicled VL-MC Harvest[17][18][19]
- Positioning — supine, ipsilateral hip slightly elevated on a roll.
- Skin paddle design — centered over the lateral thigh along the ASIS–patella axis. Typical 8 × 5 cm up to 11 × 18 cm; reports up to 38 × 20 cm for extensive harvests.[9][19]
- Incision along the anterior skin-paddle border; dissect through subcutaneous fat to the fascia lata.
- Identify the intermuscular interval between rectus femoris and vastus lateralis.
- Locate the descending branch of LCFA and accompanying venae comitantes in the intermuscular septum.
- Dissect the pedicle proximally to its origin from LCFA for maximum length (8–20 cm possible).
- Muscle harvest options:
- Full muscle — entire VL
- Segmental — one of three anatomical partitions (muscle-sparing)
- Muscle-sparing with perforator cuff — minimal muscle retained around perforators
- Flap transfer:
- Proximal pedicle — arc of rotation reaches lower abdomen, perineum, scrotum, groin
- Subcutaneous tunnel or passage beneath rectus femoris
- Inguinal route (over inguinal ligament) for pelvis; perineal route (over medial thigh) for perineum
- Donor-site closure — primary closure feasible in 81–94% of cases; STSG for wider skin paddles.[9][19]
Chimeric ALT + VL[10]
When the defect needs both bulk and skin coverage with different orientations:
- Two separate perforators — one musculocutaneous, one pure muscular — on the same LCFA pedicle.
- Muscle component wraps vessels or fills dead space.
- Fasciocutaneous component provides tension-free skin closure.
- Can be designed as a sensate flap by including the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve.
Distally-Based VL Flap[7]
Based on distal accessory pedicles arising from the deep femoral artery 7.9–15.4 cm proximal to the patella — used for knee coverage rather than urologic reconstruction, but worth knowing as an available variant.
Preoperative Planning[3][8]
- CT angiography maps perforator anatomy when ALT / ALT-VL reliability is in question.
- Assess thigh length in obese patients — short thighs increase pedicle-tension risk.
- Bilateral harvest for very large defects.
Outcomes
Overall flap survival 94–100% across published series.[1][3][9][20]
Complications[1][3][8][20]
| Complication | Rate |
|---|---|
| Venous congestion (mechanical cause) | ~33% in one VL-MC series (3/9) |
| Wound infection | 27% |
| Peripheral wound dehiscence | 27% (conservative management) |
| Total flap necrosis | 2.9–6% |
| Partial necrosis | ~3% |
Donor-Site Morbidity
Remarkably favorable with appropriate harvest strategy:[5][18][33][34]
| Parameter | Finding |
|---|---|
| Musculoskeletal dysfunction incidence | ~5% (1 in 20 patients) |
| Knee extension strength | No significant difference vs. non-operated leg |
| Knee flexion strength | Significantly reduced on operated side (p = 0.02) |
| Walking speed | Slower than age-matched controls (p < 0.001) |
| Thigh tactile sensation | Impaired in 89% (lateral femoral cutaneous nerve) |
| Lower Extremity Functional Scale (segmental harvest) | No significant change (67.7 → 67.4, NS) |
| Return to preoperative activity | 100% within 6 months (even with motor-nerve division) |
| Tolerable muscle reduction (elderly) | ≤ 50% (superficial partition only)[34] |
| Tolerable muscle reduction (young / athletic) | ≤ 30% (> 30% causes relevant quadriceps weakening)[34] |
| Hanasono 2010 — 220 ALT flaps | Seroma 5%, dehiscence 2%, hematoma 1%, infection 1%[33] |
| Primary donor closure | 81–94% |
| Skin-graft cosmesis | Can be poor — discuss at consent |
Comparison With Alternatives
ALT-VL vs VRAM for Pelvic Reconstruction[8]
| Feature | ALT-VL | VRAM |
|---|---|---|
| Abdominal-wall integrity | Preserved | Compromised |
| Donor-site hernia risk | None reported | 15–17% even with mesh |
| Availability with ostomies or prior abdominal surgery | Excellent | May be limited |
| Pedicle length | 9–16 cm | Variable |
| Bulk for dead space | Excellent | Excellent |
| Donor morbidity | Minimal | Higher |
ALT-VL's principal advantage is preserving the abdominal wall — particularly important in patients with stomas, prior rectus harvest, or planned adjuvant therapy requiring intact abdominal fascia.
VL vs Gracilis for Perineal Reconstruction
- VL — greater muscle bulk; superior for large defects and dead-space obliteration
- Gracilis — longer pedicle, easier arc of rotation to perineum, smaller donor footprint; superior for moderate defects
- Both have low donor-site morbidity
- Practical choice: VL when you need bulk, gracilis when you need reach
Key Takeaways
- VL and ALT-VL are VRAM alternatives for pelvic reconstruction — particularly valuable when the abdominal wall must be preserved.
- LCFA descending branch — the same pedicle as the ALT flap; diameter ~2.1 mm, length up to 20 cm with proximal dissection.
- Three anatomical partitions allow segmental / muscle-sparing harvest with preserved donor function (LEFS unchanged at 67.4/80).
- VL-MC is the bulk option — deep defects, dead-space obliteration, bladder-wall reconstruction, exposed vessels, defects >100 cm².
- Bladder reconstruction — muscle undersurface as bladder-wall substitute; 75% normal voiding at 1 year in small series.
- Fournier / scrotal reconstruction — 100% flap survival in most series, preserved sexual function, 1.6% flap loss in pooled data (619 patients).
- Pelvic exenteration — ALT-VL via inguinal or perineal route; bilateral for very large defects; avoid in obese patients with short thighs.
- Chimeric ALT + VL enables simultaneous skin + muscle coverage with different orientations on one LCFA pedicle.
- VL vs gracilis — choose VL when bulk is limiting, gracilis when reach is limiting.
- Overall flap survival 94–100%; the main technical failure mode is pedicle tension in obese, short-thigh patients.
References
1. Zelken JA, AlDeek NF, Hsu CC, et al. "Algorithmic Approach to Lower Abdominal, Perineal, and Groin Reconstruction Using Anterolateral Thigh Flaps." Microsurgery. 2016;36(2):104–14. doi:10.1002/micr.22354
2. Wu CW, Lin CH, Lin CH. "One-Stage Posttraumatic Bladder Reconstruction and Soft-Tissue Coverage of the Lower Abdomen or Perineum." Ann Plast Surg. 2010;64(1):65–8. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e3181a1471a
3. di Summa PG, Tremp M, Meyer Zu Schwabedissen M, et al. "The Combined Pedicled Anterolateral Thigh and Vastus Lateralis Flap as Filler for Complex Perineal Defects." Ann Plast Surg. 2015;75(1):66–73. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e3182a884c8
4. Tayfur V, Magden O, Edizer M, Atabey A. "Anatomy of Vastus Lateralis Muscle Flap." J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21(6):1951–3. doi:10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181f4ee7f
5. Toia F, D'Arpa S, Brenner E, et al. "Segmental Anatomy of the Vastus Lateralis — Guidelines for Muscle-Sparing Flap Harvest." Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(1):185e–198e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000000842
6. Wolff KD, Grundmann A. "The Free Vastus Lateralis Flap — An Anatomic Study With Case Reports." Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992;89(3):469–75.
7. Wang Y, Begue T, Masquelet AC. "Anatomic Study of the Distally Based Vastus Lateralis Muscle Flap." Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;103(1):101–3. doi:10.1097/00006534-199901000-00017
8. Wong S, Garvey P, Skibber J, Yu P. "Reconstruction of Pelvic Exenteration Defects With Anterolateral Thigh–Vastus Lateralis Muscle Flaps." Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(4):1177–1185. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b5a40f
9. Lin CT, Wang CH, Ou KW, et al. "Clinical Applications of the Pedicled Anterolateral Thigh Flap in Reconstruction." ANZ J Surg. 2017;87(6):499–504. doi:10.1111/ans.12973
10. Scaglioni MF, Franchi A, Giovanoli P. "Pedicled Chimeric Sensitive Fasciocutaneous ALT and Vastus Lateralis Muscle Flap for Groin Defect Reconstruction." Microsurgery. 2018;38(4):423–426. doi:10.1002/micr.30157
11. Yu P, Sanger JR, Matloub HS, Gosain A, Larson D. "Anterolateral Thigh Fasciocutaneous Island Flaps in Perineoscrotal Reconstruction." Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109(2):610–6. doi:10.1097/00006534-200202000-00030
12. Yao H, Zheng D, Wen J, et al. "Reconstruction of Major Scrotal Defects by Anterolateral Thigh Flap." Cell Biochem Biophys. 2014;70(2):1331–5. doi:10.1007/s12013-014-0060-z
13. Spyropoulou GA, Jeng SF, Demiri E, Dionyssopoulos A, Feng KM. "Reconstruction of Perineoscrotal and Vaginal Defects With Pedicled Anterolateral Thigh Flap." Urology. 2013;82(2):461–5. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.04.044
14. Lin CT, Chang SC, Chen SG, Tzeng YS. "Reconstruction of Perineoscrotal Defects in Fournier's Gangrene With Pedicle Anterolateral Thigh Perforator Flap." ANZ J Surg. 2016;86(12):1052–1055. doi:10.1111/ans.12782
15. Alammar A, Laing K, Somasundaram J, Wallace DL, Rogers AD. "Flap Reconstruction Following Fournier's Gangrene — A Systematic Review of Techniques and Outcomes." Burns. 2026;52(3):107888. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2026.107888
16. Guiotto M, Watfa W, Raffoul W, di Summa PG. "Anterolateral Thigh Flap With Vascularized Fascia Lata Associated With Thigh Flaps — All-in-One Reconstruction of the Suspensory Ligament and Penoscrotal District After Fournier Gangrene." Ann Plast Surg. 2020;85(6):e44–e47. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000002533
17. Waterhouse N, Healy C. "Vastus Lateralis Myocutaneous Flap for Reconstruction of Defects Around the Groin and Pelvis." Br J Surg. 1990;77(11):1275–7. doi:10.1002/bjs.1800771125
18. Schmidt AB, Fromberg G, Ruidisch MH. "Applications of the Pedicled Vastus Lateralis Flap for Patients With Complicated Pressure Sores." Spinal Cord. 1997;35(7):437–42. doi:10.1038/sj.sc.3100483
19. Acartürk TO, Bengür FB. "Individually Tailored Approach to Reconstruction of Complex Defects Using Versatility of the Lateral Circumflex Femoral Artery System-Based Pedicled Flaps." J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022;75(1):199–209. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2021.08.035
20. Hsu H, Chien SH, Wang CH, et al. "Expanding the Applications of the Pedicled Anterolateral Thigh and Vastus Lateralis Myocutaneous Flaps." Ann Plast Surg. 2012;69(6):643–9. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e3182749d31
21. Pang J, Broyles JM, Berli J, et al. "Abdominal- Versus Thigh-Based Reconstruction of Perineal Defects in Patients With Cancer." Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(6):725–732. doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000103
22. Galbraith NJ, McCollum C, Di Mascio L, et al. "Effect of Differing Flap Reconstruction Strategies in Perineal Closure Following Advanced Pelvic Oncological Resection: A Retrospective Cohort Study." Int J Surg. 2023;109(11):3375–3382. doi:10.1097/JS9.0000000000000617
23. Nelson RA, Butler CE. "Surgical Outcomes of VRAM Versus Thigh Flaps for Immediate Reconstruction of Pelvic and Perineal Cancer Resection Defects." Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123(1):175–183. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181904df7
24. Johnstone MS. "Vertical Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Versus Alternative Flaps for Perineal Repair After Abdominoperineal Excision of the Rectum in the Era of Laparoscopic Surgery." Ann Plast Surg. 2017;79(1):101–106. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000001137
25. di Summa PG, Matter M, Kalbermatten DF, Bauquis O, Raffoul W. "Transabdominal-Pelvic-Perineal (TAPP) Anterolateral Thigh Flap: A New Reconstructive Technique for Complex Defects Following Extended Abdominoperineal Resection." J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69(3):359–367. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2015.10.044
26. Gentileschi S, Servillo M, Garganese G, et al. "Versatility of Pedicled Anterolateral Thigh Flap in Gynecologic Reconstruction After Vulvar Cancer Extirpative Surgery." Microsurgery. 2017;37(6):516–524. doi:10.1002/micr.30077
27. Wong A, Sbitany H. "Reconstruction of Intrapelvic Defects Using the Free Anterolateral Thigh Flap: Expanding the Traditional Algorithm." Ann Plast Surg. 2020;84(5):554–558. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000002048
28. Höckel M, Dornhöfer N. "Vulvovaginal Reconstruction for Neoplastic Disease." Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(6):559–568. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70147-5
29. D'Arpa S, Claes K, Lumen N, et al. "Urethral Reconstruction in Anterolateral Thigh Flap Phalloplasty: A 93-Case Experience." Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(2):382e–392e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000005278
30. Harris TGW, Manyevitch R, Wu WJ, et al. "Pedicled Anterolateral Thigh and Radial Forearm Free Flap Phalloplasty for Penile Reconstruction in Patients With Bladder Exstrophy." J Urol. 2021;205(3):880–887. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001404
31. Morrison SD, Son J, Song J, et al. "Modification of the Tube-in-Tube Pedicled Anterolateral Thigh Flap for Total Phalloplasty: The Mushroom Flap." Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72(Suppl 1):S22–S26. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000000072
32. Ozkan O, Ozkan O. "The Prefabricated Pedicled Anterolateral Thigh Flap for Reconstruction of a Full-Thickness Defect of the Urethra." J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62(3):380–384. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2008.03.065
33. Hanasono MM, Skoracki RJ, Yu P. "A Prospective Study of Donor-Site Morbidity After Anterolateral Thigh Fasciocutaneous and Myocutaneous Free Flap Harvest in 220 Patients." Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(1):209–214. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181c495ed
34. Puladi B, Ooms M, Geijtenbeek T, et al. "Tolerable Degree of Muscle Sacrifice When Harvesting a Vastus Lateralis or Myocutaneous Anterolateral Thigh Flap." J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2023;77:94–103. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2022.10.036