The radial free forearm flap—prelaminated versus non-prelaminated: a comparison of two methods

Abstract

In the present work two methods of harvesting the RFFF (Radial Free Forearm Flap) are compared: the prelaminated fasciomucosal and the non-prelaminated fasciocutaneous version. The flaps were employed for intraoral reconstruction after radical oncological surgery of the oral cavity. In most cases a squamous cell carcinoma was the present malignant tumour.A total of 32 patients were included in the study, 16 in each group. The design was retrospective. Data were obtained by clinical follow up, chart review and compiled database. Analysis included the amount of shrinkage of the flaps during the follow-up period, early postoperative complications, following function improving operations and early and late donor site difficulties.Prelaminated fasciomucosal flaps showed a higher shrinkage rate than fasciocutaneous non-prelaminated flaps. Due to this circumstance the number of following function improving operations was higher in the prelaminated flap group. Early wound healing difficulties were also seen more often in the prelaminated flap group, whereas donor site problems occurred more frequently in the non-prelaminated group.Mucosal prelamination of the RFFF is a promising method for a most physiological reconstruction of intraoral defects resulting from tumour surgery. Postoperative shrinkage is a problem in prelaminated RFFF. Our aim is to improve the prelamination technique in order to prevent shrinkage. The almost complete absence of donor site difficulties in prelaminated RFFF may represent a solution to this common and yet unsolved problem.