A comparative study between submandibular-facial artery island flaps (including perforator flap) and submental artery perforator flap: A novel flap in oral cavity reconstruction

Abstract

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to introduce submandibular-facial artery island flaps (S-FAIF), including the perforator flap, and to evaluate their application for intraoral reconstruction in comparison with submental artery perforator flaps (SMAPF). MethodsNinety-six patients who underwent intraoral reconstruction using an S-FAIF (n = 34) or SMAPF (n = 62) after cancer resection were recruited in this study. The flap characteristics (viz., pedicle length, flap size, venous drainage pattern, and harvest time), short-term outcomes (viz., flap partial loss, intraoral wound dehiscence, fistula, and wound infection), and long-term morbidity (viz., facial nerve palsy, neck motion restriction, and hair growth) were compared. ResultsNine S-FAIFs were authentic perforator flaps pedicled by level Ⅰ facial artery perforators, while the rest were island flaps based on level Ⅱ facial artery perforators. The survival rates of S-FAIF and SMAPF were both 100 percent. Flap partial loss occurred in two patients in each group. The pedicle length of S-FAIF was shorter than that of SMAPF (p < 0.001). Statistics analysis revealed no significant difference regarding flap size, venous drainage pattern, short-term outcomes, neck motion restriction, or facial nerve palsy between the groups. S-FAIF required less harvest time (p < 0.001) and experienced less hair growth when compared to SMAPF (p = 0.011). ConclusionsThe S-FAIF is a robust and reliable novel flap and on par with SMAPF for reconstruction of small and medium-sized intraoral defects. It is preferred to SMAPF when technical requirements for flap harvest and hair problems are considered. It should be supplemented to the armamentarium for intraoral reconstruction.