Subjective morbidity following fibular free flap reconstruction in head and neck cancer patients

Patient-Reported Lower Extremity Outcomes Following Fibula or Medial Femoral Condyle Free Flaps for Upper Extremity Defects

BACKGROUND

Free fibula flap (FFF) and medial femoral condyle (MFC) flap are commonly used for upper extremity osseous reconstruction, yet donor-site morbidity has never been systematically compared.

METHODS

Patients who underwent an FFF or MFC for upper extremity extra-carpal osseous reconstruction at 3 academic hand centers were retrospectively identified. Only patients who underwent reconstruction for a defect in which either flap type is routinely used or has been described in the literature were deemed eligible. Patients who agreed to participate were asked to complete the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) and Lower Limb Core Scale (LLCS). The reported population norm median score of LEFS is 77 points. The LLCS population norm mean score is 90.52 points.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients (10 MFC, 11 FFF) were enrolled. The median LEFS score for patients after MFC was 76 (interquartile range [IQR], 49-80) points and 75 (IQR, 56-79) points after FFF. The median LLCS score for patients after MFC was 96.4 (IQR, 87.9-100) points and 100 (IQR, 91-100) points after FFF. Median LEFS scores were slightly below the population norm, whereas median LLCS scores were above the norm for both FFF and MFC. All patients stated they would have the surgery again and that any dysfunction or pain in the leg was justified by the benefit in the arm.

CONCLUSIONS

When considering whether to use an MFC or FFF for upper extremity reconstruction, both flap types appear to result in modest and comparable donor-site morbidity.

Comparison of patient-reported upper extremity disability following free flaps in head and neck reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Comparisons of patient-reported donor site morbidity based on the Disabilities in Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) instrument across upper trunk free flaps in head and neck surgery, including radial forearm (RFFF), osteocutaneous radial forearm (OCRFF), scapular tip (STFF), and serratus anterior (SAFF) free flaps, may help inform donor tissue selection.

METHODS

In this meta-analysis, 12 studies were included and the primary outcome was average DASH score.

RESULTS

The pooled DASH scores were 12.14 (95% CI: 7.40-16.88) for RFFF (5 studies), 17.99 (11.87-24.12) for OCRFF (2 studies), 12.19 (8.74-15.64) for STFF (3 studies), and 16.49 (5.92-27.05) for SAFF (2 studies) and were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that patients generally function well, with minimal to mild donor site morbidity, when assessed at an average of 20 months after flap harvest. These results are based on few effects from primarily retrospective studies of fair quality, and further research is needed.

Patient-reported outcomes and morbidity after head and neck reconstructions: An evaluation of fibular and scapular free flaps

BACKGROUND

Fibular (FFF) and scapular free flaps (SFF) are versatile tissue transfers for head and neck reconstruction. However, their relative morbidity has been sparsely studied. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate the morbidity and patient-reported outcome measures of these two reconstructive options.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Case series of patients from 2017 to 2020 who underwent a FFF or SFF for head and neck ablation. Demographic and surgical outcome measures, such as Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), anesthetic time, donor site morbidity, and perioperative morbidity score (POMs) were extracted. Patients were contacted to complete the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), University of Washington Quality of Life (UW-QoL), Oral Health Impact-14, and limb specific functional outcome measures. Statistical analyses included a linear regression.

RESULTS

In total, 97 FFF (mean age 58.5, 62.9% male) and 55 SFF (mean age 64.8, 63.6% male) were included. Total surgical time was higher in the SFF group (p < 0.05) and they had more comorbidities (p < 0.01). SFF patients had lower POM scores on post-operative day three (p < 0.05) while FFF patients scored better on the UW-QoL Physical Domain (p < 0.01). The DRS for both groups (FFF mean DRS 22.7, SFF mean DRS 19.2) was similar. When adjusted for patient morbidity, however, the SFF group had less decisional regret (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This is the largest comprehensive evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures for FFF and SFFs. SFFs required longer surgical times but had less early morbidity than FFFs. Patients who underwent either reconstructions reported mild decisional regret, proving these are generally well tolerated procedures.