These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Optimising oral cancer reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study on the modified radial forearm free flap technique to eliminate the need for a secondary donor site.
    Author: Huang W, Chen V, Xie Z, Rezaei A, Liu Y.
    Journal: Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2024 Apr; 62(3):265-271. PubMed ID: 38365509.
    Abstract:
    The radial forearm free flap (RFFF) is commonly used in the reconstruction of oral cancer patients. Traditional RFFF (TRFFF) techniques, which often require a secondary donor site to repair the forearm defect, may result in a scar extending to the dorsal hand. This can lead to significant functional and aesthetic concerns in the forearm. We designed a modified RFFF (MRFFF) that incorporates a glasses-shaped flap and features deep venous drainage. To evaluate its effectiveness we conducted a retrospective chart review of 105 patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma who underwent reconstructive surgery between 2018 and 2022. These patients were treated either with a TRFFF (n = 60) or the newly developed MRFFF (n = 45). Our inclusion criteria, guided by preliminary surgical experience prior to initiating the study, stipulated that single oral defects should be no larger than 6 × 6 cm2, and adjacent double defects no larger than 3 × 6 cm2. Flap size, pedicle length, harvesting duration, and anastomosis during the surgical procedure were compared between the two techniques. Preoperative and postoperative oral function, recurrence, mortality, and dorsal scarring were recorded. One-week, one-month, and six-month postoperative subjective aesthetics assessments, and self-reported postoperative donor hand function, were measured using the Michigan hand questionnaire (MHQ). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of flap size, pedicle length, harvesting time, anastomosis time, postoperative oral function, recurrence, and mortality. However, patients with a MRFFF did not require a second donor graft site and did not have scars extending to the dorsal forearm. They also had significantly improved postoperative aesthetic outcomes (1 week: 70.6%, 1 month: 62.2%) and donor hand function (1 week: 54.6%, 1 month: 40.4%) compared with the TRFFF group (p < 0.001). The MRFFF eliminates the need for secondary donor sites and improves primary donor site outcomes. It is versatile and can be employed for either single or composite oral defects. Through extensive case studies, we have defined its specific scope: it is suitable for single defects measuring no more than 6 × 6 cm2, or for composite defects no larger than 3 × 6 cm2. Furthermore, it does not compromise the functional recovery of the recipient site, and should be widely adopted for all qualifying patients.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]