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
. 2024 Apr;62(3):265-271.
doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2023.12.005. Epub 2023 Dec 12.

Optimising oral cancer reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study on the modified radial forearm free flap technique to eliminate the need for a secondary donor site

Affiliations
Free article

Optimising oral cancer reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study on the modified radial forearm free flap technique to eliminate the need for a secondary donor site

Weijia Huang et al. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024 Apr.
Free article

Abstract

The radial forearm free flap (RFFF) is commonly used in the reconstruction of oral cancer patients. Traditional RFFF (TRFFF) techniques, which often require a secondary donor site to repair the forearm defect, may result in a scar extending to the dorsal hand. This can lead to significant functional and aesthetic concerns in the forearm. We designed a modified RFFF (MRFFF) that incorporates a glasses-shaped flap and features deep venous drainage. To evaluate its effectiveness we conducted a retrospective chart review of 105 patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma who underwent reconstructive surgery between 2018 and 2022. These patients were treated either with a TRFFF (n = 60) or the newly developed MRFFF (n = 45). Our inclusion criteria, guided by preliminary surgical experience prior to initiating the study, stipulated that single oral defects should be no larger than 6 × 6 cm2, and adjacent double defects no larger than 3 × 6 cm2. Flap size, pedicle length, harvesting duration, and anastomosis during the surgical procedure were compared between the two techniques. Preoperative and postoperative oral function, recurrence, mortality, and dorsal scarring were recorded. One-week, one-month, and six-month postoperative subjective aesthetics assessments, and self-reported postoperative donor hand function, were measured using the Michigan hand questionnaire (MHQ). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of flap size, pedicle length, harvesting time, anastomosis time, postoperative oral function, recurrence, and mortality. However, patients with a MRFFF did not require a second donor graft site and did not have scars extending to the dorsal forearm. They also had significantly improved postoperative aesthetic outcomes (1 week: 70.6%, 1 month: 62.2%) and donor hand function (1 week: 54.6%, 1 month: 40.4%) compared with the TRFFF group (p < 0.001). The MRFFF eliminates the need for secondary donor sites and improves primary donor site outcomes. It is versatile and can be employed for either single or composite oral defects. Through extensive case studies, we have defined its specific scope: it is suitable for single defects measuring no more than 6 × 6 cm2, or for composite defects no larger than 3 × 6 cm2. Furthermore, it does not compromise the functional recovery of the recipient site, and should be widely adopted for all qualifying patients.

Keywords: Donor site; Kiss flap; Oral cancer reconstruction; Radial forearm free flap.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

We have no conflicts of interest.

Similar articles

References

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources