The second-time flap from the previously used anterior thigh donor site for head and neck microsurgical reconstruction

A simplified classification and economical application of anterolateral thigh flap

BACKGROUND

Anterolateral thigh (ALT) flaps have several anatomical variations and clinical uses. Here, a simplified classification and economical application are introduced.

METHODS

A total of 168 ALT flap reconstructions performed between January 2013 and December 2016 were reviewed. Vascular anatomy of the flaps was classified into 5 types: type I (single perforator from the transverse branch), type II (single perforator from the descending branch), type III (multiple perforators from the transverse branch), type IV (multiple perforators from the descending branch), and type V (multiple perforators from both branches). Furthermore, flaps harvested via preservation of the proximal perforator were compared with those that were not.

RESULTS

Vascular classification revealed that type IV (50.0%) and type V (32.1%) flaps were the most commonly used. Of these, 50.0% of type IV and 79.6% of type V were harvested as proximal-perforator-preserving distal ALT flaps. The proximal-perforator-preserving group had a smaller flap size (104.4 ± 84.3 cm2 versus 145.9 ± 94.1 cm2, p = 0.003), shorter reconstruction time (266.3 ± 76.1 min versus 302.0 ± 103.0 min, p = 0.013), and fewer donor-site complications (2.4% versus 13.3%, p = 0.009) than the traditional group, whereas the flap success rate was comparable (96.5% versus 96.4%) between them. Five cases received a second ALT flap from the same donor site after 3 failures and 2 metachronous defects.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple perforators in ALT flaps allow the harvesting of 2 ALT flaps from the same donor-site metachronously. Our classification and applications can improve efficiency while reducing donor-site morbidity.

Comparison of the outcomes between free anteromedial thigh flap and anterolateral thigh flap in head and neck cancer reconstruction: Analysis of propensity-score-matched patient cohorts

BACKGROUND

The anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap is a workhorse flap in head and neck cancer reconstruction. The anteromedial thigh (AMT) flap was developed as a rescue or alternative flap whenever the ALT flap is not available; however, the harvest of AMT flap seems to be more challenging in the sense that perforators have multiple variations. This study was designed to compare the outcome of the AMT and ALT flaps in head and neck cancer reconstruction.

METHODS

A total of 1,547 ALT and 57 AMT flaps were used for head and neck cancer reconstruction between March 1, 2008 and February 28, 2017. Differences in patient and operative characteristics were compared between the patients undergoing AMT and ALT flap reconstruction. The primary outcome of the free flap was its survival or failure, while the second outcome was the associated complications.

RESULTS

Compared to those who had ALT flap reconstruction, the patients who underwent AMT flap reconstruction had a higher rate of conditions that required reconstruction after previous cancer ablation and recurrence but a lower rate of primary cancer and deeply located cancer. Analysis of the 40 well-balanced pairs of propensity-score-matched patient cohorts revealed that the AMT flaps were associated with a significantly higher failure rate than the ALT flaps (15.0 vs. 0.0%, respectively; p = .026).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed that AMT flaps were associated with a significantly higher failure rate than ALT flaps in head and neck cancer reconstruction in the cohort of total patients and the propensity-score-matched cohorts.