Danker S, Shuck JW, Taher A, Mujtaba B, Chang EI, Chu CK, Liu J, Garvey PB, Hanna E, Yu P, Largo RD. The
lateral forearm flap versus traditional upper extremity flaps: A comparison of donor site morbidity and flap thickness.
Head Neck 2023;
45:2413-2423. [PMID:
37464915 DOI:
10.1002/hed.27446]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2023] [Revised: 06/14/2023] [Accepted: 06/20/2023] [Indexed: 07/20/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
The lateral forearm flap (LFF) is a thin fasciocutaneous flap with a donor site that can be closed primarily.
METHODS
A retrospective analysis of donor site morbidity and hand function was performed in patients who underwent a radial forearm flap (RFF), ulnar artery perforator flap (UAPF), or LFF. Flap thickness was evaluated radiographically in 50 control patients.
RESULTS
Of 134 patients (lateral forearm flap: n = 49, RFF: n = 47, UAPF: n = 38), the LFF demonstrated significantly faster return to baseline hand grip strength (3 months vs. 12 months in RFF and UAPF; p < 0.001), had significantly fewer donor site complications (6.1% compared to 6.4% in RFF and 28.9% in UAPF; p = 0.003) and fewer sensory deficits (2.0% compared to 6.4% in RFF and 15.8% in UAPF sites; p = 0.013). The radiographic study confirmed the LFF to be the thinnest of all upper extremity flap options.
CONCLUSIONS
The LFF is an excellent forearm-based flap option with thin, pliable tissue and low donor site morbidity.
Collapse