Donor site outcomes and functional recovery are improved with superficial inferior epigastric artery perforator flap compared to radial forearm flap in oral and maxillofacial reconstruction.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
American journal of translational research Pub Date : 2025-05-15 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.62347/GYJH5711
Jian Sun, Ying Huang, Yixi Wang, Daihong Liu, Hui Zhao
{"title":"Donor site outcomes and functional recovery are improved with superficial inferior epigastric artery perforator flap compared to radial forearm flap in oral and maxillofacial reconstruction.","authors":"Jian Sun, Ying Huang, Yixi Wang, Daihong Liu, Hui Zhao","doi":"10.62347/GYJH5711","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the efficacy of the superficial inferior epigastric artery perforator (SIEA) flap and radial forearm (FA) flap in reconstructing oral and maxillofacial soft tissue defects, with emphasis on donor site complications, functional recovery, aesthetic outcomes, and quality of life.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on 204 patients who underwent SIEA (n = 104) or FA (n = 100) flap reconstruction between 2014 and 2023. Outcomes assessed included flap survival, donor site complications (scarring, sensory abnormalities), functional recovery (mouth opening, speech clarity), and quality of life (based on UW-QOL). Statistical analysis included chi-square tests, t-tests, and logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Flap survival rates were similar between groups (P = 0.411). However, the SIEA group exhibited significantly better donor site outcomes: fewer sensory abnormalities (P < 0.001), less severe scarring (P < 0.001), and greater aesthetic satisfaction (P = 0.027). Functional outcomes also favored the SIEA flap, with improved mouth opening (P = 0.024) and speech clarity (P < 0.001). However, SIEA reconstruction required longer operative time (P < 0.001). Independent risk factors for delayed donor site healing included age ≥ 60 years, BMI ≥ 23 kg/m<sup>2</sup>, smoking, diabetes, and extended hospitalization.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The SIEA flap offers superior donor site aesthetics, sensory preservation, and functional recovery compared to the FA flap, though it is associated with longer operative time. The FA flap remains a reliable option. Preoperative planning should consider individualized flap selection based on vascular anatomy, comorbidities, and aesthetic goals.</p>","PeriodicalId":7731,"journal":{"name":"American journal of translational research","volume":"17 5","pages":"3790-3801"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12170411/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of translational research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.62347/GYJH5711","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy of the superficial inferior epigastric artery perforator (SIEA) flap and radial forearm (FA) flap in reconstructing oral and maxillofacial soft tissue defects, with emphasis on donor site complications, functional recovery, aesthetic outcomes, and quality of life.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 204 patients who underwent SIEA (n = 104) or FA (n = 100) flap reconstruction between 2014 and 2023. Outcomes assessed included flap survival, donor site complications (scarring, sensory abnormalities), functional recovery (mouth opening, speech clarity), and quality of life (based on UW-QOL). Statistical analysis included chi-square tests, t-tests, and logistic regression.

Results: Flap survival rates were similar between groups (P = 0.411). However, the SIEA group exhibited significantly better donor site outcomes: fewer sensory abnormalities (P < 0.001), less severe scarring (P < 0.001), and greater aesthetic satisfaction (P = 0.027). Functional outcomes also favored the SIEA flap, with improved mouth opening (P = 0.024) and speech clarity (P < 0.001). However, SIEA reconstruction required longer operative time (P < 0.001). Independent risk factors for delayed donor site healing included age ≥ 60 years, BMI ≥ 23 kg/m2, smoking, diabetes, and extended hospitalization.

Conclusion: The SIEA flap offers superior donor site aesthetics, sensory preservation, and functional recovery compared to the FA flap, though it is associated with longer operative time. The FA flap remains a reliable option. Preoperative planning should consider individualized flap selection based on vascular anatomy, comorbidities, and aesthetic goals.

与前臂桡侧皮瓣相比,腹浅下动脉穿支皮瓣在口腔颌面部重建中的供区预后和功能恢复均有改善。
目的:比较腹壁下浅动脉穿支皮瓣(SIEA)与前臂桡侧皮瓣(FA)修复口腔颌面部软组织缺损的疗效,重点观察供区并发症、功能恢复、美观效果和生活质量。方法:回顾性分析2014 - 2023年间行SIEA (n = 104)或FA (n = 100)皮瓣重建术的204例患者。评估的结果包括皮瓣存活、供区并发症(瘢痕、感觉异常)、功能恢复(张嘴、说话清晰)和生活质量(基于UW-QOL)。统计分析包括卡方检验、t检验和逻辑回归。结果:两组间皮瓣存活率相近(P = 0.411)。然而,SIEA组表现出明显更好的供体部位结果:更少的感觉异常(P < 0.001),更少的严重疤痕(P < 0.001),更高的审美满意度(P = 0.027)。功能结果也有利于SIEA皮瓣,改善张嘴(P = 0.024)和言语清晰度(P < 0.001)。然而,SIEA重建需要更长的手术时间(P < 0.001)。供区愈合延迟的独立危险因素包括年龄≥60岁、BMI≥23 kg/m2、吸烟、糖尿病和延长住院时间。结论:与FA瓣相比,SIEA瓣提供了更好的供区美观、感觉保存和功能恢复,尽管其手术时间较长。FA瓣仍然是一个可靠的选择。术前计划应考虑基于血管解剖、合并症和美学目标的个体化皮瓣选择。
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
American journal of translational research
American journal of translational research ONCOLOGY-MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
自引率
0.00%
发文量
552
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信