RÉSUMÉ
Objective@#To demonstrate the advantages of performing medial sural artery perforator flap compared with forearm flap. @*Methods @# Between April 2010 and April 2011, 20 clinical cases were reconstructed using the medial sural artery perforator flap technique and compared with 20 forearm flap cases. Data on recent complications (in 2 weeks) and late complications (after 3 months) were collected. @*Results @#Of the 20 medial sural artery perforator flaps, Only 1 case needed a skin graft, while 19 cases were primarily closed, and 1 case occurred muscle necrosis. Only linear scar was found in the postoperative donor area, and the effect on appearance and function was slight. Of the 20 forearm flaps, all cases needed a skin graft. For the recent complications, 3 cases of effusion under the skin graft, 2 cases of partial necrosis and 2 cases of wound dehiscence were observed. For the late complications of the forearm, 16 cases of an abnormal sensation were observed in the forearm group and 5 cases of an abnormal sensation were observed in the medial sural artery perforator flap group, and these differences were statistically significant (P <0.05). Significant differences were not observed in the other subjective contrasts(P >0.05). Scarring and pigmentation were much more serious in the forearm cases than the medial sural artery cases (P <0.05), and significant differences in the functional objective examination results were not observed between the two groups (P >0.05). @*Conclusion @#The medial sural artery perforator flap represents a good alternative for oral and maxillofacial reconstructions of small- and medium-sized defects, and it presents advantages over the forearm flap since it has less donor-site morbidity.