• Osman Akdağ, Gökçe Yıldıran, Mustafa Sütçü, and Mehtap Karameşe.
• Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Selçuk University Faculty of Medicine, Konya-Turkey. oakdag@gmail.com.
• Ulus Travma Acil Cer. 2018 Jan 1; 24 (1): 43-48.

BackgroundOur objective was to compare the outcomes of dorsal hand defect reconstruction using a posterior interosseous artery flap (PIAF) and a reverse adipofascial radial forearm flap (RARFF).MethodsFrom 2008 to 2013, 23 patients who underwent hand soft tissue defect reconstruction with PIAF (11 patients) and RARFF (12 patients) were included in this retrospective study. Reconstruction methods were compared in terms of functionality with disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) score and range of motion (ROM) and aesthetically with scar assessment. Operation times, length of hospital stay, and donor site problems were compared.ResultsWe found no statistically significant differences between PIAF and RARFF in terms of ROM, DASH score, and length of hospital stay. Statistically significant differences were found in operation time, scar assessment, and donor site problems between PIAF and RARFF patients.ConclusionRARFF showed better results than PIAF in dorsal hand defects, but in RARFF, the major arteries of the hand are sacrificed.

16 keywords...

hide…