Abstract
BackgroundThe ideal method for buccal defects should provide good outcome of both function and appearance; our goal is to highlight the reliability of radial forearm flap in buccal reconstruction.MethodsA retrospective study was conducted. From 2005 to 2012, 20 radial forearm flaps were used to repair the defects. We analyzed the superiority and reliability of the flap; in addition, we reviewed some related literature and made a comparison between radial forearm flap and platysma flap.ResultsAll radial forearm flaps totally survived, but two flaps suffered venous obstruction, hematoma, respectively. Radial forearm flap preserved the original interincisal distance well. In our follow-up, all patients had sufficient mouth-opening width (mean: 4.3 cm).ConclusionRadial forearm flap is a reliable method for buccal defect reconstruction.
Highlights
The ideal method for buccal defects should provide good outcome of both function and appearance; our goal is to highlight the reliability of radial forearm flap in buccal reconstruction
We review our experiences with use of radial forearm free flap (RFFF) for buccal defects in a series of 20 patients
There was no significant difference between the two groups in preoperative open-mouth width (P = 0.73), the postoperative distance was wider in the RFFF group than in the platysma flap (PF) group (P = 0.002), and the change in open-mouth width was significantly smaller in the RFF compared to the PF group (P < 0.001) (Table 2)
Summary
The ideal method for buccal defects should provide good outcome of both function and appearance; our goal is to highlight the reliability of radial forearm flap in buccal reconstruction. Buccal squamous cell carcinomas are the most common malignant tumors among all buccal neoplasms. The objectives in the reconstruction of buccal defects after surgical resection include restoration of function and structural cosmesis [4]. Nowadays RFFF is a workhorse in reconstructive head and neck surgery. It has some well-known advantages: a reliable anatomy, long pedicle length, goodsize vessels, suitable thinness and relative sparsity of hair, to substitute mobile oral mucosa [6,7,8].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
