• Edward I Chang and Jun Liu.
• From the Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.
• Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2020 May 1; 145 (5): 1267-1274.

BackgroundThe forearm is a common donor site, providing thin, pliable workhorse flaps for head and neck reconstruction. There are no prospective studies comparing the donor-site morbidity of the radial forearm flap to the ulnar artery perforator flap.MethodsAll patients undergoing forearm free flaps were included for analysis and followed for a minimum of 1 year. Grip strength, sensation to light touch, temperature sensation, and wound healing were assessed.ResultsA total of 98 patients were enrolled (radial forearm flap, n = 50; ulnar artery perforator flap, n = 48). There were three osteocutaneous radial forearm flaps performed. The donor site was closed primarily in one radial forearm flap patient and four ulnar artery perforator flap patients. The majority of donor sites were resurfaced with full-thickness skin grafts (radial forearm flap, n = 40; ulnar artery perforator flap, n = 44), and the remaining were closed with split-thickness skin grafts. Average grip strength compared to baseline measured at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery demonstrated no significant differences. All patients returned to baseline sensation to light touch with no long-term sensory deficits at 1 year. No patients suffered significant changes in temperature sensation or cold intolerance. Seven patients suffered partial skin graft loss (radial forearm flap, n = 5; ulnar artery perforator flap, n = 2); all of them healed secondarily with local wound care. There were no flap losses in the study.ConclusionsThe radial forearm and ulnar artery perforator flaps are equivalent in terms of success and donor-site morbidity. Selection of flap should be based on need for pedicle length, flap bulk, concerns with radial or ulnar dominance, and surgeon comfort.Clinical Question/Level Of EvidenceTherapeutic, II.

38 keywords...

hide…