RESUMO
Background@#Reconstruction after removal of a malignant tumor in the head and neck region is crucial for restoring tissue integrity, function, and aesthetics. We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent intraoral reconstruction surgery using radial forearm free flaps (RFFF) and anterolateral thigh free flaps (ALT) at a single institution to provide more information supporting the choice of a reconstruction method after removal of head and neck cancer. @*Methods@#The charts of 708 patients who underwent head and neck reconstruction between 1998 and 2018 at the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Patients’ age, sex, and history of radiation therapy, diabetes mellitus, and smoking were retrieved. The primary cancer site, types of defects, and complications were investigated. @*Results@#Overall, 473 and 95 patients underwent reconstruction surgery with RFFF and ALT, respectively. RFFF was more often used in patients with cancers of the pharynx, larynx, esophagus, or tonsil, while ALT was more frequently used in patients with cancers of the mouth floor with tonsil or tongue involvement. The proportion of patients undergoing ALT increased gradually. Flap failure and donor site morbidities did not show significant differences between the two groups. @*Conclusions@#RFFF and ALT flaps resulted in similar outcomes in terms of flap survival and donor site morbidity. ALT can be an option for head and neck reconstruction surgery in patients with large and complex defects or for young patients who want to hide their donor site scars.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a soft tissue defect of the heel pad can be challenging. One vital issue is the restoration of the ability of the heel to bear the load of the body weight. Many surgeons prefer to use local flaps or free tissue transfer rather than a skin graft. In this study, we evaluated the criteria for choosing a proper flap for heel pad reconstruction. METHODS: In this study, 23 cases of heel pad reconstruction were performed by using the flap technique. The etiologies of the heel defects included pressure sores, trauma, or wide excision of a malignant tumor. During the operation, the location, size and depth of the heel pad defect determined which flap was chosen. When the defect size was relatively small and the defect depth was limited to the subcutaneous layer, a local flap was used. A free flap was selected when the defect was so large and deep that almost entire heel pad had to be replaced. RESULTS: There was only one complication of poor graft acceptance, involving partial flap necrosis. This patient experienced complete recovery after debridement of the necrotic tissue and a split thickness skin graft. None of the other transferred tissues had complications. During the follow-up period, the patients were reported satisfactory with both aesthetic and functional results. CONCLUSION: The heel pad reconstructive method is determined by the size and soft-tissue requirements of the defect. The proper choice of the donor flap allows to achieve satisfactory surgical outcomes in aesthetic and functional viewpoints with fewer complications.