Reconstruction of soft-tissue defects of the head and neck: radial forearm flap or anterolateral thigh flap?

Abstract

This study compared the reliability, practicability and impact to donor site functionality of radial forearm (RF) and anterolateral thigh (ALT) flaps used for the reconstruction of head and neck soft-tissue defects. The clinical data of patients who underwent reconstruction using RF flaps (n=53) and ALT flaps (n=21) after tumour ablation were reviewed. Pedicle length, skin area harvested and flap survival rate were compared between the two flap types. A questionnaire was used to compare the patients' perceptions of donor site functionality. Pedicle length did not significantly differ between RF and ALT flaps (7.5 vs. 9cm, p=0.733). A significantly larger mean area of skin was harvested in the ALT group than in the RF group (65 vs. 38cm(2), p=0.001). Flap survival rates did not differ between the two groups (p=0.554). Patients in the ALT group were more satisfied with the appearance of the donor sites than were those in the RF group (p=0.029). Significantly more patients in the RF group complained of donor site numbness than in the ALT group (p=0.014). No ALT group patients complained of movement impairment or weakness at the donor sites, but 10% of RF group patients experienced impairment (p=0.014) and 35% felt weakness (p=0.001). The ALT and RF flaps showed similar practicability and reliability for the reconstruction of soft-tissue defects, but ALT flaps had fewer impacts to donor site functionality than RF flaps.