Comparison of Radial Forearm With Fibula and Scapula Osteocutaneous Free Flaps for Oromandibular Reconstruction | Facial Plastic Surgery | JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.239.150.57. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Blackwell  KEBuchbinder  DUrken  ML Lateral mandibular reconstruction using soft-tissue free flaps and plates.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996;122672- 678PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Blackwell  KELacombe  V The bridging lateral mandibular reconstruction plate revisited.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;125988- 993PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Arden  RLRachel  JDMarks  SCDang  K Volume-length impact of lateral jaw resections on complication rates.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;12568- 72PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Song  RGao  YSong  Y  et al.  The forearm flap.  Clin Plast Surg 1982;921- 26PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
Smith  AABowen  CVRabszak  TBoyd  JB Donor site deficit of the osteocutaneous radial forearm flap.  Ann Plast Surg 1994;32372- 376PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Thoma  AKhadaroo  RGrigenas  O  et al Oromandibular reconstruction with the radial-forearm osteocutaneous flap: experience with 60 consecutive cases.  Plast Reconstr Surg1999104368378 discussion 379-380 PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
Werle  AHTsue  TTToby  EBGirod  DA Osteocutaneous radial forearm free flap: its use without significant donor site morbidity.  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;123711- 717PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Rhee  JSWeisz  DJHirigoyen  MDSinha  UAlcaraz  NUrken  ML Intraoperative mapping of sensate flaps: electrophysiologic techniques and neurosomal boundaries.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;123823- 829PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Urken  MLWeinberg  HVickery  C  et al.  The combined sensate radical forearm and iliac crest free flaps for reconstruction of significant glossectomy-mandibulectomy defects.  Laryngoscope 1992;102543- 558PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Haughey  BHWilson  E  et al.  Free flap reconstruction of the head and neck: analysis of 241 cases.  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;12510- 17PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Tsue  TTGirod  DA Osteocutaneous radial forearm flap.  In: Branham  G, Sclafani  A, Talavera  F, Stepnick  D, Slack  C, Meyers  A, eds.  Otolaryngology and Facial Plastic Surgery/Reconstructive Surgery. eMedicine.com Inc; 2001. Available at: http://www.eMedicine.com/ent/topic720.htmGoogle Scholar
12.
Urken  MLWeinberg  HVickery  CBuchbinder  DLawsor  WBiller  HF Oromandibular reconstruction using microvascular composite free flaps: report of 71 cases and a new classification scheme for bony, soft-tissue, and neurologic defects.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1991;117733- 744PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Wei  FCDemirkan  FChen  HCChen  IH Double free flaps in reconstruction of extensive composite mandibular defects in head and neck cancer.  Plast Reconstr Surg 1999;10339- 47PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Urken  MLBuchbinder  DConstantino  PD  et al.  Oromandibular reconstruction using microvascular composite flaps: report of 210 cases.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;12446- 55PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Haughey  BHTaylor  SMFuller  D Fasciocutaneous flap reconstruction of the tongue and floor of mouth: outcomes and techniques.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;1281388- 1395PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Villaret  DBFutran  NA The indications and outcomes in the use of osteocutaneous radial forearm free flap.  Head Neck 2003;25475- 481PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Thoma  AAllen  MTadeson  BHArchibald  SJackson  SYoung  JE The fate of the osteotomized free radial forearm osteocutaneous flap in mandible reconstruction.  J Reconstr Microsurg 1995;11215- 219PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Futran  NDUrken  MLBuchbinder  DMoscoso  JFBiller  HF Rigid fixation of vascularized bone grafts in mandibular reconstruction.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;12170- 76PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Militsakh  ONWallace  DIKriet  JDGirod  DAOlvera  MSTsue  TT Use of the 2.0-mm locking reconstruction plate in primary oromandibular reconstruction after composite resection.  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;131660- 665PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Article
July 2005

Comparison of Radial Forearm With Fibula and Scapula Osteocutaneous Free Flaps for Oromandibular Reconstruction

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;131(7):571-575. doi:10.1001/archotol.131.7.571
Abstract

Objective  To compare our experience with the osteocutaneous radial forearm free flap (group 1) (n = 108) with other commonly used osteocutaneous free flaps (group 2) (n = 56) such as the fibula and scapula in single-stage oromandibular reconstruction.

Design  Retrospective case review.

Setting  Tertiary-care academic medical center.

Patients  One hundred sixty-three consecutive patients who underwent 164 mandibular reconstructions with osteocutaneous free flaps.

Main Outcome Measures  Assessment of preoperative and intraoperative variables for both groups. We compared recipient-site complication rate, intensive care unit stay, total hospital stay, and postoperative function.

Results  The most common donor site used was the radius (n = 108 [66%]), followed by the fibula (n = 36 [22%]) and scapula (n = 20 [12%]). Mean follow-up was 29 months (range, 1-116 months). Group 2 patients had larger soft tissue and/or bony defects. Surgical and medical complication rates and major donor site morbidity in group 1 were similar or better when compared with those in group 2. The lengths of the intensive care unit (4 vs 7 days; P = .009) and hospital stays (13 vs 15 days; P = .06) were shorter in group 1. Although the microvascular success rate was similar in both groups, the local wound complication rate was significantly better for group 1. The difference for the length of intensive care unit stay was statistically significant and potentially amounts to more than $6000 of savings. Functional outcomes, including the ability to tolerate oral diet, tracheostomy presence, and dental rehabilitation, were similar between the groups.

Conclusions  The primary site long-term morbidity, donor site morbidity, and postoperative function of osteocutaneous radial forearm free flaps are comparable to those of other commonly used osteocutaneous free flaps such as the fibula and scapula when used in single-stage oromandibular reconstruction.

×