Surgical outcomes of suprafascial and subfascial radial forearm free flaps in head and neck reconstruction

초록

Background: Conventional radial forearm free flaps (RFFFs) are known to be safe, but can result in donor site complications. Based on our experiences with suprafascial and subfascial RFFFs, we evaluated the safety of flap survival and surgical outcomes. Methods: This was a retrospective study of head and neck reconstructions using RFFFs from 2006 to 2021. Thirty-two patients underwent procedures using either subfascial (group A) or suprafascial (group B) dissection for flap elevation. Data were collected on patient charac-teristics, flap size, and donor and recipient complications, and the two groups were compared. Results: Thirteen of the 32 patients were in group A and 19 were in group B. Group A included 10 men and three women, with a mean age of 56.15 years, and group B included 16 men and three women, with a mean age of 59.11 years. The mean defect areas were 42.83 cm² and 33.32 cm², and the mean flap sizes were 50.96 cm² and 44.54 cm² in groups A and B, respectively. There were 13 donor site complica-tions: eight (61.5%) in group A and five (26.3%) in group B. Flexor tendon exposure occurred in three patients in group A and in none in group B. All flaps survived completely. A recipient site complication occurred in two patients (15.4%) in group A and three patients (15.8%) in group B. Conclusions: Complications and flap survival were similar between the two groups. However, tendon exposure at the donor site was less prevalent in the suprafascial group, and the treatment period was shorter. Based on our data, suprafascial RFFF is a reliable and safe procedure for reconstruction of the head and neck. Abbreviations: ADM, acellular dermal matrix; BR, brachioradialis; FCR, flexor carpi radialis; FCU, flexor carpi ulnaris; RFFF, radial forearm free flap; STSG, split-thickness skin graft. © 2023 Korean Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association.

키워드