ABSTRACT
Use of the ulnar forearm flap (UFF) is limited by concerns for ulnar nerve injury and impaired perfusion in the donor extremity. Twenty UFFs were performed over a 6-year period. All patients underwent postoperative bilateral upper extremity arterial duplex studies. A subset of postoperative patients (n = 10) also had bilateral upper extremity sensory and motor evaluations, and functional evaluation via the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH). Motor function was tested by digital and key grip dynamometry. Ulnar nerve sensation was tested by evaluation of one- and two-point perceived pressure thresholds and two-point discrimination using the Pressure-Specified Sensory Device (Sensory Management Services, LLC, Baltimore, MD). All UFFs were viable postoperatively. Mean follow-up was 28.8 months for vascular studies and 45.3 months for motor, sensory, and QuickDASH evaluations. Although mid and distal radial artery flow velocities were significantly higher in donor versus control extremities evaluated at less than 1 year postoperatively, there was no significant difference in extremities evaluated at later time points. Digital pressures, grip strength, key pinch strength, and ulnar sensation were equivalent between donor and control extremities. The mean QuickDASH score was 17.4 ± 23.8. The UFF can be harvested reliably and long-term follow-up shows no evidence of impaired vascular, motor, or sensory function in the donor extremity.
Subject(s)
Forearm/blood supply , Head and Neck Neoplasms/surgery , Tissue and Organ Harvesting/methods , Transplant Donor Site/physiopathology , Blood Flow Velocity , Disability Evaluation , Female , Forearm/innervation , Forearm/surgery , Free Tissue Flaps/blood supply , Graft Survival , Hand Strength , Humans , Male , Radial Artery/physiopathology , Plastic Surgery Procedures/methods , Recovery of Function , Sensory Thresholds , Surveys and Questionnaires , Time Factors , Ulnar Nerve/physiopathologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To date, only limited case reports involving isolated bilateral zygomatic arch fractures exist. This fracture pattern is defined by the presence of bilateral zygomatic arch fractures and the absence of any other facial fractures. The purpose of this study was to systematically review a large trauma database to determine whether this fracture pattern exists and, if so, to elucidate the mechanism of injury and associated concomitant injuries. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients admitted to the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma center from February of 1998 to December of 2009 was conducted. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision coding of computed tomographic scans was used to identify patients with zygoma fractures. The facial computed tomographic scans of all patients coded with bilateral zygoma fractures were reviewed to determine whether any had isolated bilateral zygomatic arch fractures. Medical charts were reviewed extensively. RESULTS: Five patients (0.24 percent of all zygoma fractures, 3.18 percent of bilateral zygoma fractures) were found to have isolated bilateral zygomatic arch fractures. All five patients had evidence of skull impact with at least one skull fracture and one skull base fracture. Glasgow Coma Scale scores (range, 6 to 14; average, 8.2) were significantly lower (t test, two-sided, p=0.01) compared with all patients (average, 12.2) with facial trauma during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated bilateral zygomatic arch fractures do exist. The authors' findings suggest skull impacts as the inciting mechanism of injury and an intimate link with skull base force transmission. The severe nature of this injury warrants a search for concomitant injuries to the head, brain, and spinal cord.
