Clinical Efficacy of V-Y Subcutaneous Pedicle Flap and Modified Rhomboid Flap in Defect Repair After Facial Tumor Resection.

Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of V-Y subcutaneous pedicle flaps and modified rhomboid flaps for facial tumor resection defect repair.

Methods: One hundred three patients were divided into a V-Y subcutaneous pedicle flap group (n=52) and a modified rhomboid flap group (n=51) based on the surgical approach. Total operation time, flap size, postoperative healing time, satisfaction, scar, neurosensory function, and complications were compared.

Results: The V-Y subcutaneous pedicle flap group had a smaller flap size (3.51±1.05 versus 3.98±1.01, P=0.023), shorter operation time (24.42±5.02 versus 29.57±5.12, P<0.001), and healing time (6.31±0.86 versus 7.07±1.07, P<0.001). Their visual analogue scale (8.48±1.04 versus 7.93±1.08, P=0.010) and Patient satisfaction score (8.83±0.87 versus 8.36±1.00, P=0.014) were higher. In terms of scar pigmentation (P=0.013), vascularity (P=0.007), pliability (P=0.045), and neurosensory function (P=0.033), it outperformed the modified rhomboid flap group. There was no significant difference in complications (P>0.05).

Conclusions: This research discovered that both flap approaches have certain efficacies. In contrast, the V-Y subcutaneous pedicle flap repair modality holds more advantages in clinical therapy. Its level of improvement in clinical therapeutic effects and control of adverse events is superior to that of the modified rhomboid flap.