Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2020 May;145(5):1267-1274.
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000006790.

Prospective Comparison of Donor-Site Morbidity following Radial Forearm and Ulnar Artery Perforator Flap Harvest

Edward I Chang  1 , Jun Liu  1
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Prospective Comparison of Donor-Site Morbidity following Radial Forearm and Ulnar Artery Perforator Flap Harvest

Edward I Chang et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 May.

Abstract

Background: The 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.

Methods: All 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.

Results: A 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.

Conclusions: The 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 evidence: Therapeutic, II.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Inoue Y, Taylor GI. The angiosomes of the forearm: Anatomic study and clinical implications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;98:195–210.
    1. Koshima I, Iino T, Fukuda H, Soeda S. The free ulnar forearm flap. Ann Plast Surg. 1987;18:24–29.
    1. Yu P, Chang EI, Selber JC, Hanasono MM. Perforator patterns of the ulnar artery perforator flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:213–220.
    1. Wax MK, Rosenthal EL, Winslow CP, Bascom DA, Andersen PE. The ulnar fasciocutaneous free flap in head and neck reconstruction. Laryngoscope 2002;112:2155–2160.
    1. Sieg P, Bierwolf S. Ulnar versus radial forearm flap in head and neck reconstruction: An experimental and clinical study. Head Neck 2001;23:967–971.

Publication types

MeSH terms