ABSTRACT
The radial forearm free flap (RFFF) has become popular for head and neck reconstructions. Owing to a constant anatomy the RFFF is relatively easy to dissect. Nevertheless, anatomical variations of the radial artery have been reported. Some variations could affect the survival of the flap. This paper reports an unusual anomaly of the radial artery where the radial artery was not located between the brachioradialis (BR) and flexor carpi radialis. The radial artery was observed above the BR and on the radial side of the BR. The survival of the elevated flap was deemed questionable because it had only few perforators. So we decided to discard the flap and to elevate another free flap for the head and neck defect. The donor area on the forearm was covered using the original skin of the first flap as a full-thickness skin graft. This case highlights a means to deal with anomalies of the radial artery encountered during the elevation of RFFF and the checking process for variations of the radial artery before RFFF.
ABSTRACT
Background@#Conventional radial forearm free flaps (RFFFs) are known to be safe, but can result in donor site complications. Based on our experiences with suprafascial and subfascial RFFFs, we evaluated the safety of flap survival and surgical outcomes. @*Methods@#This was a retrospective study of head and neck reconstructions using RFFFs from 2006 to 2021. Thirty-two patients underwent procedures using either subfascial (group A) or suprafascial (group B) dissection for flap elevation. Data were collected on patient characteristics, flap size, and donor and recipient complications, and the two groups were compared. @*Results@#Thirteen of the 32 patients were in group A and 19 were in group B. Group A included 10 men and three women, with a mean age of 56.15 years, and group B included 16 men and three women, with a mean age of 59.11 years. The mean defect areas were 42.83 cm² and 33.32 cm², and the mean flap sizes were 50.96 cm² and 44.54 cm² in groups A and B, respectively. There were 13 donor site complications: eight (61.5%) in group A and five (26.3%) in group B. Flexor tendon exposure occurred in three patients in group A and in none in group B. All flaps survived completely. A recipient site complication occurred in two patients (15.4%) in group A and three patients (15.8%) in group B. @*Conclusions@#Complications and flap survival were similar between the two groups. However, tendon exposure at the donor site was less prevalent in the suprafascial group, and the treatment period was shorter. Based on our data, suprafascial RFFF is a reliable and safe procedure for reconstruction of the head and neck.
ABSTRACT
Bilateral pectoralis major myocutaneous (PMMC) flaps are commonly used to reconstruct large chest wall defects. We report a case of large chest wall defect reconstruction using bilateral PMMC flaps augmented with axillary V-Y advancement rotation flaps for additional flap advancement. A 74-year-old male patient was operated on for recurrent glottic squamous cell carcinoma. Excision of the tumor resulted in a 10×10 cm defect in the anterior chest wall. Bilateral PMMC flaps were raised to cover the chest wall defect. For further flap advancement, V-Y rotation advancement flaps from both axillae were added to allow complete closure. All flaps survived completely, and postoperative shoulder abduction was not limited (100° on the right side and 92° on the left). Age-related skin redundancy in the axillae enabled the use of V-Y rotation advancement flaps without limitation of shoulder motion. Bilateral PMMC advancement flaps and the additional use of V-Y rotation advancement flaps from both axillae may be a useful reconstructive option for very large chest wall defects in older patients.