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

Q2 Medicine
Sae Hwi Ki, Tae Jun Park, Jin Myung Yoon
{"title":"Surgical outcomes of suprafascial and subfascial radial forearm free flaps in head and neck reconstruction.","authors":"Sae Hwi Ki,&nbsp;Tae Jun Park,&nbsp;Jin Myung Yoon","doi":"10.7181/acfs.2023.00171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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 characteristics, flap size, and donor and recipient complications, and the two groups were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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 complications: 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":52238,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Craniofacial Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f2/78/acfs-2023-00171.PMC10365904.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Craniofacial Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7181/acfs.2023.00171","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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 characteristics, 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 complications: 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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

前臂桡骨筋膜上及筋膜下游离皮瓣在头颈部重建中的手术效果。
背景:传统的前臂桡骨游离皮瓣(rfff)是安全的,但可能导致供区并发症。根据我们对筋膜上和筋膜下rfff的经验,我们评估了皮瓣存活的安全性和手术结果。方法:这是一项回顾性研究,从2006年到2021年使用RFFFs进行头颈部重建。32例患者行筋膜下(A组)或筋膜上(B组)剥离皮瓣抬高术。收集患者特征、皮瓣大小、供受体并发症等数据,并对两组进行比较。结果:32例患者中,A组13例,B组19例。A组男性10例,女性3例,平均年龄56.15岁;B组男性16例,女性3例,平均年龄59.11岁。A组和B组的平均缺损面积分别为42.83 cm²和33.32 cm²,皮瓣面积分别为50.96 cm²和44.54 cm²。供区并发症13例,其中A组8例(61.5%),b组5例(26.3%)。A组3例出现屈肌腱外露,b组0例。A组2例(15.4%)发生受体部位并发症,b组3例(15.8%)发生受体部位并发症。然而,筋膜上组供区肌腱暴露较少,治疗时间较短。根据我们的数据,筋膜上RFFF是一种可靠和安全的头颈部重建手术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Archives of Craniofacial Surgery
Archives of Craniofacial Surgery Medicine-Otorhinolaryngology
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信