Are hand biomechanics affected following radial forearm flap harvest? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Medial sural artery perforator free flap versus radial forearm free flap in oral cavity reconstruction and donor site morbidity

OBJECTIVE

Radial Forearm Free flap (RFFF) is widely used in head and neck reconstruction, yet its donor site defect remains a significant drawback. The Medial Sural Artery Perforator Free Flap (MSAPFF) is considered an alternative flap to RFFF. This study aims to comprehensively analyze their characteristics, outcomes, and their impact on patient quality of life.

METHODS

All patients who underwent oral cavity reconstruction using RFFF and MSAPFF between February 2017 and April 2023 were included in this study. Flap characteristics, outcomes and post-operative complications were recorded and compared. Subjective donor site morbidity, aesthetic and functional results, and quality of life were also analyzed.

RESULTS

The study included 76 patients: 37 underwent reconstruction with RFFF, and 39 with MSAPFF. There was no significance difference between the RFFF and MSAPFF regarding the success rate (97.2% vs 97.4%), flap size (4.8 × 8.8 cm2 vs 5 × 9.8 cm2), hospital of stay (15.5 days vs 13.5 days) and recipient site complications (P > 0.05). However, MSAPFF showed larger flap thickness (P = 0.001), smaller arterial caliber (P = 0.008), shorter pedicle length (P = 0.001), and longer harvesting time (P < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the pre-and postoperative ranges of wrist and ankle movements or in recipient site complications. MSAPFF showed a significant difference in donor site morbidity (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The MSAPFF is an excellent alternative to the RFFF for repairing oral cavity defects, with additional advantage of a well-hidden scar on the posterior calf, a larger flap thickness, accepted pedicle length and arterial caliber. However, one should consider the harvesting time and surgical skills required in comparison to the RFFF.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The study highlights the importance of the MSAPFF as an alternative option for RFFF with less donor site morbidity and high success rate in oral cavity reconstruction and improved patient Quality of life after ablative surgery.

Biomechanical and aesthetic outcomes following radial forearm free flap transfer: comparison of ipsilateral full-thickness skin graft and traditional split-thickness skin graft

The radial forearm free flap (RFFF) is associated with donor site morbidity. This study aimed to quantify the functional and aesthetic outcomes after closure of the RFFF donor site using triangular full-thickness skin grafts (FTSGs) harvested adjacent to the flap or traditional split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs). The study included patients who underwent oral cavity reconstruction with an RFFF between March 2017 and August 2021. The patients were divided into two groups based on the donor site closure method: FTSG or STSG. The primary outcomes were biomechanical grip strength, pinch strength, and range of wrist movements. Subjective donor site morbidity, aesthetic and functional results were also analysed. The study included 75 patients (FTSG n = 35; STSG n = 40). Postoperatively, there was a statistically significant difference in grip strength (P = 0.049) and wrist extension (P = 0.047) between the FTSG and STSG groups, in favour of the STSG. Differences between the groups in pinch strength and other wrist motions were not statistically significant. The harvesting time was significantly shorter for the FTSG (P = 0.041) and the appearance of the donor site was better (P = 0.026) when compared to the STSG. Cold intolerance was more frequent in the STSG group (32.5% STSG vs 6.7% FTSG; P = 0.017). Subjective function, numbness, pain, hypertrophic scar, itching, and social stigma did not differ significantly between the groups. Compared with the STSG, the FTSG showed better cosmesis and avoided additional donor sites, with clinically negligible differences in hand biomechanics.

Functional and biomechanical assessment of the hand following ulnar forearm free flap transfer: Prospective self-controlled study

BACKGROUND

There is a shortage of well-designed self-controlled studies evaluating hand biomechanics following ulnar forearm flap (UFF) harvest. This study was conducted to evaluate objective and subjective functional outcomes of the donor's hand following UFF harvest.

METHODS

All patients undergoing UFF were included for analysis. Grip strength, wrist movement, forearm supination and pronation, pinch strengths, sensation to light touch and temperature, and hand dexterity were assessed preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. In addition, DASH score (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand score) and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 18 patients were enrolled. A significant reduction in grip strength for donor's hand was observed between preoperative and postoperative 1 and 3 months (mean difference = 14 kg, 7.38 kg, respectively, p = 0.000 for all). A similar trend was observed for pinch strength and range of motion (p < 0.05). Three months after surgery, there is still a significant reduction in tip pinch, tripod pinch, wrist extension, and supination. All biomechanics outcomes returned to preoperative baseline at 6 months after surgery. No patients suffered significant changes in sensation to light touch, temperature, and numbness by 6 months. There was a significant increase in DASH score by 3.37 points 6 months after operation (p = 0.000). The POSAS score indicates satisfaction with the appearance of the donor site.

CONCLUSIONS

UFF is a safe and reliable option for oral cavity reconstruction with minimum donor site morbidities, mainly when cosmesis is paramount. Furthermore, objective hand biomechanics ultimately returns to its preoperative state within 6 months after surgery.

Posterior tibial artery flap versus radial forearm flap in oral cavity reconstruction and donor site morbidity

The repair of soft tissue defects after oral cavity cancer resection is challenging. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes and donor site morbidity of the radial forearm free flap (RFF) and posterior tibial artery perforator flap (PTAF) for oral cavity reconstruction after cancer ablation. All patients who underwent oral cavity reconstruction with a RFF or PTAF between January 2017 and December 2019 were included retrospectively in this study. All flaps were harvested with a long adipofascial extension. The donor site defects were closed with a triangular full-thickness skin graft harvested adjacent to the flap. Flap outcomes and donor site complications were recorded and compared. The study included 145 patients; 30 underwent reconstruction with a RFF and 115 with a PTAF. No significant difference between the PTAF and RFF was observed concerning the flap survival rate (98.3% vs 96.7%), flap harvest time (53.39 vs 49.28 min), hospital stay (12.3 vs 15.2 days), or subjective functional and cosmetic outcomes. The PTAF showed a larger vascular calibre (P < 0.05), greater flap thickness (P = 0.002), and lower frequency of surgical site infection (P = 0.055) when compared to the RFF. No significant difference was observed between the pre- and postoperative ranges of ankle and wrist movements. The PTAF is an excellent alternative to the RFF for the repair of oral cavity defects, with the additional advantages of a well-hidden scar on the lower extremity, larger vascular calibre, and lower frequencies of postoperative donor site morbidities.

Survival of vascularized osseous flaps in mandibular reconstruction: A network meta-analysis

Objective

An evidence regarding which bony flap for reconstruction of mandibular defects following tumour resection is associated with the highest survival rate is still lacking. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to guide surgeons selecting which vascularized osseous flap is associated with the highest survival rate for mandibular reconstruction.

Methods

From inception to March 2021, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane library were searched to identify the eligible studies. The outcome variable was the flap survival rate. The Bayesian NMA accompanied by a random effect model and 95% credible intervals (CrI) was calculated.

Results

Twenty-two studies with a total of 1513 patients, comparing four osseous flaps namely fibula free flap (FFF), deep circumferential iliac artery flap (DCIA), scapula flap, and osteocutaneous radial forearm flap (ORFF) were included. The respective survival rates of FFF, DCIA, Scapula, and ORFF were 94.50%, 93.12%, 97%, and 95.95%. The NMA failed to show a statistically significant difference between all comparators (FFF versus DCIA (Odd ratio, 1.8; CrI, 0.58,5.0); FFF versus ORFF (Odd ratio, 0.57; CrI, 0.077; 2.9); FFF versus scapula flap (Odd ratio, 0.25; CrI, 0.026; 1.5); DCIA versus ORFF (Odd ratio, 0.32; CrI, 0.037; 2.1); DCIA versus scapula flap (Odd ratio, 0.14; CrI, 0.015; 1.1) and ORFF versus scapula flap (Odd ratio, 2.3; CrI, 0.16; 34)).

Conclusion

Within the limitations of the current NMA, FFF, DCIA, Scapula, and ORFF showed a comparable survival rate for mandibular reconstruction. Although the scapula flap reported the highest survival rate compared to other osseous flaps for mandibular reconstruction; however, the decision making when choosing an osseous flap should be based on many factors rather than simply flap survival rate.