Medial sural artery perforator free flap for small- to medium-sized defects in head and neck reconstruction: a suitable replacement for radial forearm free flap.

IF 2 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Pub Date : 2025-02-08 DOI:10.1186/s40902-024-00455-4
Yulian Zhang, Keran Pan, Jian Wu, Xi Tang
{"title":"Medial sural artery perforator free flap for small- to medium-sized defects in head and neck reconstruction: a suitable replacement for radial forearm free flap.","authors":"Yulian Zhang, Keran Pan, Jian Wu, Xi Tang","doi":"10.1186/s40902-024-00455-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>To compare clinical outcomes and donor site morbidity between medial sural artery perforator (MSAP) flap and radial forearm free (RFF) flap for soft tissue reconstruction of head and neck.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty-six patients who underwent free flap reconstruction at the head and neck cancer center from February 2019 to March 2021 were included, of which 25 RFF flaps and 21 MSAP flaps. The patient and flap characteristics (age, sex, flap size, harvest time, etc.) and outcomes (success rate, donor site complications including infection, hematoma, and fistula, donor site morbidity including abnormal sensation, weakness, range of motion, postoperative oral function) were recorded and compared. Patients were followed up for at least 12 months after surgery. The patients were assessed subjective donor-site morbidity and satisfaction with overall functional results using a self-reported questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The success rates of RFF flaps and MSAP flaps were 96% and 95.2%. There were no significant differences in age, sex, flap size, pedicle length, postoperative treatment, and postoperative oral function. MSAP flap showed less donor site morbidity and better subjective satisfaction at the donor site than RFF flap did after a 12-month follow-up. A dominant perforator of the medial sural artery emerges constantly near the point which is approximately 15 cm from the popliteal fossa center vertically, and 3 cm from the postor midline of the leg horizontally.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Due to less donor site morbidity and higher patient satisfaction, MSAP flap can be used as a replacement for RFF flap for small to medium-sized defects in head and neck reconstruction.</p>","PeriodicalId":18357,"journal":{"name":"Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery","volume":"47 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11805724/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-024-00455-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: To compare clinical outcomes and donor site morbidity between medial sural artery perforator (MSAP) flap and radial forearm free (RFF) flap for soft tissue reconstruction of head and neck.

Methods: Forty-six patients who underwent free flap reconstruction at the head and neck cancer center from February 2019 to March 2021 were included, of which 25 RFF flaps and 21 MSAP flaps. The patient and flap characteristics (age, sex, flap size, harvest time, etc.) and outcomes (success rate, donor site complications including infection, hematoma, and fistula, donor site morbidity including abnormal sensation, weakness, range of motion, postoperative oral function) were recorded and compared. Patients were followed up for at least 12 months after surgery. The patients were assessed subjective donor-site morbidity and satisfaction with overall functional results using a self-reported questionnaire.

Results: The success rates of RFF flaps and MSAP flaps were 96% and 95.2%. There were no significant differences in age, sex, flap size, pedicle length, postoperative treatment, and postoperative oral function. MSAP flap showed less donor site morbidity and better subjective satisfaction at the donor site than RFF flap did after a 12-month follow-up. A dominant perforator of the medial sural artery emerges constantly near the point which is approximately 15 cm from the popliteal fossa center vertically, and 3 cm from the postor midline of the leg horizontally.

Conclusion: Due to less donor site morbidity and higher patient satisfaction, MSAP flap can be used as a replacement for RFF flap for small to medium-sized defects in head and neck reconstruction.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Medial sural artery perforator free flap for small- to medium-sized defects in head and neck reconstruction: a suitable replacement for radial forearm free flap. The Tri-Lift suspension technique: a modified deep-plane lip lift for enhanced aesthetic outcomes-my personal approach. Therapeutic potential of 4-hexylresorcinol in reducing sarcopenia in diabetic masseter muscle. Treatment outcomes of two surgical techniques in secondary reconstruction of unilateral cleft lip and ala nasi utilizing anthropometry assessment: a randomized controlled trial. Establishment of an oral burn model in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1