• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Soleus muscle flap for reconstruction of lower extremity trauma. Workhorse or glue factory?

    2022-07-21 01:18:38KatelynKondraChristianJimenezEloiseStantonIdeanRoohaniJakeBecerraJosephCarey
    Plastic and Aesthetic Research 2022年5期

    Katelyn Kondra, Christian Jimenez, Eloise Stanton, Idean Roohani, Jake Becerra, Joseph Carey

    Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Keck Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA.

    Abstract Aim: Soleus muscle flaps have traditionally been a reliable tool in the plastic surgeon’s armamentarium for lower extremity reconstruction and limb salvage. In the modern era, many surgeons prefer free flaps. This study sought to evaluate trends and outcomes of soleus flap reconstruction after lower extremity injury in a large cohort at a Level 1 trauma center.Methods: This is an Institutional Review Board -approved, retrospective chart review that was undertaken at Los Angeles County + University of Southern California Medical Center from 2007 to 2021. Patient demographics, Gustilo-Anderson fracture classification, flap characteristics, and outcomes were collected and analyzed. Outcomes of interest included failure rates, postoperative complications, and long-term ambulatory status.Results: Of 187 local leg flaps, 68 (36.4%) were soleus flaps, with 84% of soleus flaps performed prior to 2016. The flap loss rate was 0.0%. Eighteen (26.1%) flaps demonstrated > 1 complication, including osteomyelitis/hardware infection (n = 12), flap revision (n = 6), and amputation (n = 2). Long-term follow-up demonstrated 35.3% of patients ambulating independently after an average of 7.5 ± 7.2 months, with the remainder needing a wheelchair or walking assistance device.Conclusion: Although soleus flap loss rate was 0%, the findings demonstrate more infections than expected; this must be considered in light of pre-existing patient comorbidities possibly deterring free flap placement. Additionally, our results reveal that only 16% of soleus flaps were performed after 2015. As surgeons consider the reconstructive ladder for lower extremity trauma, a rotational soleus muscle flap should not be overlooked in the modern era of free flap tissue transfers and might be a more optimal flap choice in certain patients with multiple comorbidities.

    Keywords: Trauma, lower extremity, local flap, soleus, ambulatory status

    INTRODUCTION

    Hallmarks of limb salvage include hemostasis, patent vascular flow, bony fixation, infection control, and soft tissue coverage. Accordingly, the reconstructive surgeon is presented with a complex soft tissue injury unable to be closed primarily. Previously established treatment algorithms dictate the use of local calf muscles for the upper two-thirds of the leg while using free tissue transfer for the lower-third of the leg and foot[1-3]. Better insight into local flap anatomy and physiology has led to some centers even reporting a decreased reliance on free flaps for soft tissue coverage for traumatic lower extremity reconstruction[4].

    Given finite flap options coupled with considerable soft tissue damage, traumatic reconstruction continues to pose a significant challenge to the reconstructive surgeon beyond the inherent risk of limb loss associated with limb salvage[5]. Inclusion of muscle in flap design has historically been viewed as protective toward postoperative infection given a robust blood supply compared to fasciocutaneous flaps[6]. Other advantages of muscle flaps include the ability to eliminate dead space with vascularized tissue; however, muscle flaps can be associated with donor site morbidity and flap bulk.

    While advances in microsurgical technique have allowed surgeons to utilize free flaps for soft tissue coverage, distal lower extremity trauma is often too small to sensibly utilize free flaps but too large to close primarily. Considerations of flap design include patient factors (medical comorbidities, surgical risk, current adjuvant therapy), local factors (injury location, injury severity, associated fractures, tissue quality, previous surgical sites), and flap factors (color, texture, surface area, volume, pedicle length, arc of rotation)[7]. Therefore, careful deliberation is vital when planning for traumatic reconstruction.

    The soleus flap is known to be an optimal flap for the middle- and lower-third of the leg[8]. Its primary vascular pedicles include the popliteal artery and branches of both the posterior tibial (medial belly) and peroneal arteries (lateral belly)[5,9]. As a consequence of its dual blood supply, the soleus flap can advantageously be split longitudinally into a hemisoleus flap with an improved rotational arc[10]. However, soleus muscle harvest has been associated with decreased ankle flexion and impaired venous return[11]. Despite these risks, soleus muscle flaps have traditionally been a reliable tool in the plastic surgeon’s armamentarium for traumatic lower extremity reconstruction and should not be overlooked in the modern era of free flaps. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the trends and outcomes of soleus flap reconstruction after lower extremity injury in a large cohort at a Level 1 trauma center.

    METHODS

    This is an Institutional Review Board approved retrospective chart review using a prospectively maintained database at the Los Angeles County + University of Southern California (LAC + USC) Medical Center from 2007 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients 18 years of age or older; (2) definitive soft tissue coverage by soleus muscle flap; (3) operation conducted by the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) service at LAC + USC; and (4) available follow-up records of postoperative outcomes of the lower extremity.Chart review was performed by four separate reviewers (CJ, IR, JB, KK) across electronic medical records (EMR) and paper charts. Patient demographics, body mass index (BMI), medical comorbidities, mechanism of injury (MOI), wound location, Gustilo-Anderson (GA) fracture classification, and flap characteristics were reviewed and analyzed. Primary outcomes of interest included flap complications, including flap revision, flap necrosis, and flap loss. Secondary outcomes included infection rates, limb amputation, ambulatory status, and duration until final ambulation. Ambulatory status was defined as either walking unassisted, using an assistance device (i.e., walker, crutches, or cane), wheelchair, or limb amputation. Time until final ambulation was calculated as the difference between the date of flap placement and the earliest date of the highest level of ambulation, which was abstracted from any note in the medical record specifying the patient’s highest ambulation.

    SPSS Statistics 28.0 was used to analyze differences in patient demographics, injury characteristics, postoperative complications, and ambulatory status. Descriptive statistical analysis for demographic data included the means and standard deviations. Student'st-test was used to compare continuous variables, and chi-square was used to analyze categorical data. P-values were reported as two-tailed and were indicated as statistically significant if thealpha(α) value was less than or equal to 0.05.

    RESULTS

    In our single-institution review of microsurgical reconstruction, 187 lower extremity local flaps were placed, 68 (36.4%) of which were soleus muscle flaps. Only 16% of soleus flaps (n =11) were performed after 2015.

    Demographics

    The average age was 39.4 years old (SD: 16.2) and the average BMI was 27.8 kg/m2(SD: 5.3) across 63 (92.6%) males and five (7.4%) females. The most common comorbidity was tobacco usage (n =36; 52.9%), followed by hypertension (n =17; 25.0%), and diabetes mellitus (n =11; 16.2%); 44 patients (64.7%) reported > 1 comorbidity. Illicit drug use was reported in 27.9% of patients (n =19); the most common substance was cocaine (n= 6; 8.8%) [Table 1].

    Injury & flap characteristics

    The most common MOI warranting reconstruction was auto versus pedestrian (n =34; 49.3%), followed by motorcycle collisions (n =7; 10.1%), gunshot wounds (n =5; 7.2%), and falls (n =5; 7.2%). Wound severity was classified by the Gustilo-Anderson (GA) classification system for open fractures. Open fractures were diagnosed in 56 patients, with GA fracture IIIB (n =35; 50.7%) seen in over half of these patients, GA type II occurring in 18 patients (26.1%), and GA type IIIC occurring in two patients (2.9%). Soleus flaps were predominantly placed on middle-third leg wounds (69.6%) followed by distal-third injuries (32.4%) [Table 2]; only one hemisoleus flap was placed, and no cross-leg free flaps were performed. Of note, a significantly larger percentage of patients (53.6%) with high severity injuries (i.e., GA type IIIA-C) suffered middle-third leg wounds (P =0.009).

    Table 1. Patient demographics

    The most commonly fractured bone was the tibia, occurring in 62 of 63 patients (98.4%) with fractures, with middle-third fractures being the most common fracture location (66.1%). Multiple concurrent unilateral fractures were seen in the majority of patients, with the most common combinations being the middle-third tibia/fibula (n =17) followed by fracture of the distal-third tibia/fibula (n =9). Eighteen patients suffered multiple remote fractures, including contralateral lower extremity (n =10), upper extremity (n =9) and pelvis (n =7).

    In certain cases, the soleus flap was combined with the medial gastrocnemius flap (n =3), lateral gastrocnemius flap (n =1), vastus lateralis flap (n =1), and anterolateral thigh flap (n =1). Skin grafts were employed in 67 patients (98.5%). Of note, eight patients (11.8%) suffered from arterial injuries.

    Complications & long-term functional outcomes

    Regarding postoperative complications, twelve patients (17.6%) suffered hardware infections (n= 2) and/or osteomyelitis (n =11) [Table 3]. Among these twelve patients, ten smoked tobacco, six endorsed illicit substance use, four had hypertension, two had diabetes mellitus, and one had obstructive sleep apnea. One patient with osteomyelitis required a below-the-knee amputation (BKA); notably, this patient suffered a GA IIIB injury. Of these 12 patients, there were four concurrent upper extremity fractures and two concurrent contralateral lower extremity fractures (n =4). No statistical significance was found between high severity fractures (GA type IIIA-C) and postoperative infection rate. Similarly, no significance was identified between diabetes mellitus or > 1 comorbidity and infectious complications.

    Six patients (8.8%) required flap revision and two (2.9%) experienced partial flap loss [Table 3]; notably, six of these patients smoked tobacco. Three of the patients who needed flap revision developed osteomyelitis, one of which also had a hardware infection. Of the eight patients who suffered arterial injuries, two required flap revisions, and one necessitated an above-the-knee amputation (AKA); of note, the latter patient suffered a GA IIIC injury. There was 100% flap survival at the most recent clinic follow-up.

    The mean follow-up time from discharge date to latest follow-up with the PRS team was 3.7 months (SD: 6.8). Of the patients with documented follow-up, 35.3% of patients (n =24) were independently ambulatory after an average of 7.5 months (SD: 7.2) [Figure 1]. Twenty-four patients used a walking assistance device (walker or cane) at the most recent follow-up, and twenty patients were wheelchair-dependent [Table 3].

    Figure 1. Duration of time until independent ambulation among patients who received soleus flap.

    Table 2. Injury & flap characteristics

    Table 3. Postoperative outcomes & complications

    DISCUSSION

    An interesting trend identified in our review was 84% of soleus flaps were placed prior to 2016, with all patients who received soleus flaps for isolated proximal-third leg injuries occurring prior to 2016. With the increased use of locally-based perforator flaps[12], there appears to be less reliance on the aforementioned workhorse flap; however, it should not be overlooked as a reliable flap option for wounds involving the middle-third leg, as demonstrated by 0% flap loss. The muscle bulk recruited during flap elevation is well contoured for tibial coverage, providing added aesthetic benefit[5]for these injuries. Additionally, the soleus flap is a relatively simple and safe alternative to more complex microsurgical reconstruction with free flap placement[12]. Per operative dictation, indications for soleus flap placement were commonly weighed against free flap placement; however, wound size, ability to approximate the defect, surrounding tissue quality, and arc of rotation of the muscle belly prompted soleus flap selection. Reflective of the literature, soleus flaps were mostly selected for wounds involving the middle- and distal-third leg.

    The robust nature of the soleus flap is exemplified by 0% flap loss in our cohort, in which most patients endorsed comorbidities unfavorable to a free flap, namely tobacco use. Our cohort demonstrated a higher than expected incidence of overall infectious complications (17.6%); additionally, a significantly higher percentage of smokers developed infectious complications (83.3%,P =0.017), which is reflective of the literature suggesting that smoking increases infectious complications in plastic surgery patients[13,14]. Furthermore, 66.7% of patients who required flap revisions smoked tobacco - a known vasoconstrictor and deterrent to wound healing[15]. Interestingly, in our study, high severity GA fracture classification was not significantly correlated with infection (P =0.304), despite 56 patients having open lower extremity fractures and GA fracture classification being a strong predictor of deep infections[16]. However, our cohort demonstrated that significantly more patients with high-grade GA injuries suffered middle-third leg wounds (P= 0.009), prompting soleus flap allocation.

    Four of the twelve (33.3%) patients who suffered infectious complications had concurrent remote fractures, likely reflective of higher impact MOI, and, subsequently, a higher likelihood of infection based on increased injury severity. GA can be used as a surrogate for injury severity[16,17]; notably, our data did not demonstrate significance between GA classification and the need for flap revision (P= 0.599), possibly reflective of a small number of revisions (8.7%); notably, four of six patients requiring revision had GA type II fractures. Studies have shown higher-grade injuries associated with a greater risk of complications; notably, GA type III injuries are often associated with higher amputation rates and delayed revascularization as they commonly result from blunt and high-velocity trauma[17,18]. Similarly, among the two patients who suffered from type IIIC injuries, both patients had arterial injuries and one patient required an amputation. In such high severity open fractures, flap coverage and bony union can improve the likelihood of achieving full ambulation by six months postoperatively[18].

    Eight patients suffered arterial injuries, two of which required revisional surgery. One of these eight patients required an AKA after suffering a significant injury with a GA type IIIC open fracture, arterial and nerve injuries, two unilateral leg fractures, and two remote fractures, with a history of hypertension and use of two illicit substances. All these factors increased the likelihood of complications with limb salvage and ultimately resulted in amputation. As mentioned previously, the clinically grave picture preoperatively reflected the severity of the injury and strongly influenced the outcome. It is important to note that a preoperative angiogram may be of added benefit[5], especially in the setting of severe trauma, to confirm the patency of major perforators when considering flap design. Free tissue transfer should be considered as a final reconstructive option for larger wounds in the middle- or distal-third leg or those involving trauma to the soleus or its perforators[5].

    Donor site morbidity is a considerable outcome involved in flap harvest. Although muscle flaps are reported as imparting an acceptable functional outcome in the literature, a potential unknown ambulatory morbidity is associated with this option, is variable across patients, and may be reflective of the injury itself. This notion might be reflective of the increase in pedicled perforator flaps[12]and reflective of our surgical trend in which 16% of soleus flaps were placed after 2015. However, given severe tissue disruption in traumatic injuries, pedicled fasciocutaneous perforator flaps may be of limited use in such situations, thereby supporting the versatile soleus muscle flap[12]. Following the transfer of the soleus muscle, Knoppet al.[19]used isokinetic testing three years postoperatively and found a mean reduction in muscle-strength flexion of 30%. While it has been reported that functional donor site morbidity is mild in patients who had a complete recovery from the index trauma, patients can still demonstrate deficits and compensatory motions during more challenging activities (i.e., fast/uphill walking)[20]. Further research should focus on flap type and its correlation with long-term ambulation.

    This study was limited in focus to soleus flaps alone and commented explicitly on the location of soleus flap placement and outcomes. Our group has parallel publications examining flap choice based on wound location as well as local versus free flap implementation; however, the aim of this particular study was to describe the trends and outcomes of soleus flap usage at a large Level 1 trauma center. One of the limitations of this study is the variability in outpatient follow-up; fifteen patients had no long-term followup after discharge. While the mean follow-up time from discharge date to latest follow-up with PRS was 3.7 months (SD: 6.8), the average date of highest ambulation across the whole cohort was 5.4 ± 9.8 postoperatively. The average time to ambulation for those who achieved fully independent ambulation was 7.5 months (SD: 7.2). Additionally, the duration of time until final ambulation was reached may be higher than we report since patients are more likely to return for follow-up when experiencing postoperative complications or requiring a medical device that helps them ambulate. In contrast, fully ambulatory patients are less likely to follow up, and the exact date of final ambulation may be unknown. Future studies could implement more frequent follow-ups through phone or telehealth visits. Other limitations include patient loss to follow-up and possible errors that could have occurred during the crossover between EMR and paper charts, providing mixed difficulty across chart reviews with a certain paucity of data.

    In conclusion, this study examines outcomes of over 15 years of experience with lower extremity reconstruction employing soleus flaps at a Level 1 trauma center. Although the flap loss rate in this cohort was 0%, the findings demonstrate higher than expected infectious complications. Additionally, our results reveal only 16% of soleus flaps were performed at our institution after 2015. As surgeons consider the reconstructive ladder for lower extremity trauma, a rotational soleus muscle flap should not be overlooked in the modern era of free flap tissue transfers and might be a more optimal flap choice in certain patients with multiple comorbidities. Future studies should evaluate the difference in functional and aesthetic outcomes based on flap type and evaluate the impact of patient comorbidities and demographics on wound healing and ambulation.

    DECLARATIONS

    Authors’ contributions

    Assisted with study concept and design: Roohani I, Kondra K, Carey J

    Acquired, analyzed, or interpreted the data: Roohani I, Kondra K, Jimenez C, Stanton E, Becerra J

    Drafted the manuscript: Kondra K, Jimenez C, Stanton E, Roohani I

    Provided critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Kondra K, Carey J

    Calculated statistical analysis: Roohani I, Jimenez C, Stanton E

    Provided administrative, technical, or material support: Carey J

    Supervised study: Carey J

    Availability of data and materials

    Not applicable.

    Financial support and sponsorship

    None.

    Conflicts of interest

    All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

    Ethical approval and consent to participate

    Not applicable.

    Consent for publication

    Not applicable.

    Copyright

    ? The Author(s) 2022.

    亚洲最大成人手机在线| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 国产精品女同一区二区软件 | 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 九九在线视频观看精品| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 久久久国产成人免费| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 久久草成人影院| av视频在线观看入口| 久久久成人免费电影| av福利片在线观看| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久 | 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 91久久精品电影网| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| www国产在线视频色| 欧美黑人巨大hd| www.999成人在线观看| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 18+在线观看网站| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 99热只有精品国产| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 国产高清videossex| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 男人舔奶头视频| 手机成人av网站| 中文字幕久久专区| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 美女大奶头视频| 国产一区二区三区视频了| 9191精品国产免费久久| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 午夜福利18| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻| 老司机福利观看| 久久久色成人| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 日韩欧美三级三区| 国产野战对白在线观看| 久久国产精品影院| 成人欧美大片| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 1024手机看黄色片| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 天堂动漫精品| 在线视频色国产色| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 岛国在线观看网站| 脱女人内裤的视频| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 69人妻影院| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看 | 久久香蕉国产精品| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 婷婷亚洲欧美| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 内地一区二区视频在线| 日韩有码中文字幕| 一区二区三区免费毛片| av在线天堂中文字幕| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 国产成人系列免费观看| 91久久精品电影网| 精品福利观看| 看黄色毛片网站| 欧美大码av| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 亚洲国产色片| 嫩草影院入口| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 午夜福利欧美成人| 此物有八面人人有两片| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 色av中文字幕| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 日本一二三区视频观看| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9 | 宅男免费午夜| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 中国美女看黄片| 一夜夜www| 一个人免费在线观看的高清视频| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 少妇丰满av| 精品久久久久久,| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 午夜视频国产福利| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片 | 久久精品人妻少妇| 精品国产亚洲在线| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 91在线观看av| 成人精品一区二区免费| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 在线看三级毛片| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 青草久久国产| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 国产精品 国内视频| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站 | 免费av不卡在线播放| www日本在线高清视频| 国产探花极品一区二区| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 91在线观看av| 在线播放无遮挡| 欧美日本视频| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 怎么达到女性高潮| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 免费在线观看日本一区| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 制服人妻中文乱码| 国产高清三级在线| 日本一本二区三区精品| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 男女那种视频在线观看| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 国产高清videossex| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| xxx96com| 天堂网av新在线| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 少妇的逼水好多| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 搞女人的毛片| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| h日本视频在线播放| 欧美区成人在线视频| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 1000部很黄的大片| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| avwww免费| 亚洲片人在线观看| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 日韩欧美三级三区| 变态另类丝袜制服| 久久久久久大精品| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| 极品教师在线免费播放| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 毛片女人毛片| 国产成人aa在线观看| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 人妻久久中文字幕网| av黄色大香蕉| 日日夜夜操网爽| 18+在线观看网站| www日本在线高清视频| 在线观看66精品国产| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 午夜福利高清视频| 午夜福利18| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 色综合站精品国产| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 中国美女看黄片| 在线观看日韩欧美| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 内射极品少妇av片p| 九九在线视频观看精品| 国产乱人视频| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 午夜免费激情av| 热99re8久久精品国产| 免费看日本二区| 一本精品99久久精品77| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 在线a可以看的网站| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 色综合婷婷激情| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 中文字幕久久专区| 特级一级黄色大片| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 色吧在线观看| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 久久亚洲真实| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 久久草成人影院| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 香蕉久久夜色| 在线观看66精品国产| 嫩草影视91久久| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 免费高清视频大片| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 禁无遮挡网站| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 精品久久久久久成人av| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 美女免费视频网站| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 一本一本综合久久| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 天堂网av新在线| 免费看光身美女| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 一a级毛片在线观看| 天堂√8在线中文| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 国产成人aa在线观看| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 18+在线观看网站| 熟女电影av网| 成人三级黄色视频| 亚洲内射少妇av| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 国产激情欧美一区二区| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 天堂√8在线中文| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 级片在线观看| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 欧美日韩黄片免| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 九九热线精品视视频播放| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| www国产在线视频色| 国产激情欧美一区二区| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 国产三级在线视频| 久久精品影院6| 夜夜爽天天搞| 日本黄色片子视频| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 激情在线观看视频在线高清| 久久久久亚洲av毛片大全| 国产精品,欧美在线| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 51国产日韩欧美| 国产成人a区在线观看| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 一个人免费在线观看电影| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 亚洲 国产 在线| 99热只有精品国产| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 色视频www国产| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 全区人妻精品视频| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 亚洲第一电影网av| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 久久中文看片网| 亚洲黑人精品在线| www国产在线视频色| 9191精品国产免费久久| 不卡一级毛片| 国产成人福利小说| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| av黄色大香蕉| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| or卡值多少钱| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 欧美区成人在线视频| 草草在线视频免费看| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 波多野结衣高清作品| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 极品教师在线免费播放| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻| 悠悠久久av| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 青草久久国产| 国产高清三级在线| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 色吧在线观看| www.www免费av| 午夜久久久久精精品| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 欧美bdsm另类| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 亚洲精品456在线播放app | 九色成人免费人妻av| 欧美乱妇无乱码| 天堂网av新在线| av在线蜜桃| 长腿黑丝高跟| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 看免费av毛片| 久久久久久人人人人人| 女生性感内裤真人,穿戴方法视频| 久久久国产成人免费| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 午夜精品在线福利| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 久99久视频精品免费| 特级一级黄色大片| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 精品久久久久久久末码| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 在线免费观看的www视频| 久久九九热精品免费| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 久久久久久大精品| xxxwww97欧美| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 欧美在线黄色| 国产精品 国内视频| 欧美大码av| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 久久久久久久午夜电影| av片东京热男人的天堂| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 精品国产三级普通话版| 国产成人影院久久av| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 91字幕亚洲| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久 | 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 丁香欧美五月| 日本 欧美在线| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 床上黄色一级片| 久久久久性生活片| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 香蕉av资源在线| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 在线国产一区二区在线| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 久久6这里有精品| 午夜久久久久精精品| 国产高潮美女av| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 51国产日韩欧美| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 一本一本综合久久| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 国产不卡一卡二| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 在线国产一区二区在线| 欧美bdsm另类| 午夜精品在线福利| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 1024手机看黄色片| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 国产熟女xx| 亚洲内射少妇av| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区 | av福利片在线观看| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 国产视频内射| 日本成人三级电影网站| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 久久草成人影院| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 欧美成人a在线观看| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 精品国产三级普通话版| 精品一区二区三区视频在线 | 亚洲国产欧美人成| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 不卡一级毛片| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 精品人妻1区二区| www.www免费av| 亚洲无线观看免费| www.色视频.com| 很黄的视频免费| 久久国产精品影院| 亚洲无线在线观看| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月 | 最新中文字幕久久久久| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 国产一区二区三区视频了| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 国产精品久久久久久久久免 | 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 欧美乱妇无乱码| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月 | 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| 高清在线国产一区| 在线视频色国产色| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| a级毛片a级免费在线| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| av国产免费在线观看| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 日本黄大片高清| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 亚洲在线观看片| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 一区福利在线观看| 国产精品永久免费网站| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9 | 18+在线观看网站| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 国产精品久久视频播放| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| 国产激情欧美一区二区| 深夜精品福利| 国产综合懂色| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 亚洲精品456在线播放app | 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 日韩欧美精品免费久久 | 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 免费观看精品视频网站| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av | 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 岛国视频午夜一区免费看| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 色av中文字幕| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 欧美日韩黄片免| 毛片女人毛片| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 手机成人av网站| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 岛国在线观看网站| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱 | 国产av在哪里看| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 国产精品野战在线观看| 我要搜黄色片| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 日本五十路高清| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 国产真实乱freesex| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 午夜免费激情av| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 久久中文看片网| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 女警被强在线播放| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 两个人看的免费小视频| 岛国视频午夜一区免费看| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 国产老妇女一区| 欧美乱妇无乱码| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 国产成人福利小说| 岛国在线观看网站| 日本一二三区视频观看| 97碰自拍视频| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 岛国视频午夜一区免费看| 99热精品在线国产|