[Clinical Comparative Study of Free Posterior Tibial Artery Perforator Flap and Radial Forearm Free Flap for Head and Neck Reconstruction].
Y Wang,J G Fang,Z G Huang,Y Zhang,L Z Hou,S Z He,X H Chen,Z Yang,W Guo,Q Zhong
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn115330-20210518-00280
2021-01-01
Abstract:Objective: To compare the clinical application results of the FPTF (free posterior tibial artery perforator flap) and RFFF (radial forearm free flap) for reconstruction of head and neck defects. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 27 cases treated with FPTF (19 males and 8 females, aged 14-69 years) and 24 cases with RFFF (11 males and 13 females, aged 22-69 years) for head and neck defect reconstruction at Beijing Tongren Hospital of Capital Medical University from January 2015 to December 2020 was conducted. Flap size, vascular pedicle length, matching degree of recipient area blood vessels, preparation time, total operation time, hospital stay, recipient area complications, donor area complications and scale-based patient satisfaction were compared between two groups of patients with FTPF and RFFF. SPSS 26.0 statistical software was used for statistical analysis. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups of patients in tumor T staging (P=0.38), primary sites (P=0.05) and mean flap areas ((53.67±29.84) cm2 vs. (41.13±11.08) cm2, t=-1.472, P=0.14). However the mean vascular pedicle length of FPTF was more than that of RFFF ((11.15±2.48)cm vs. (8.50±1.69)cm, t=-4.071, P<0.01). The donor sites of 4 patients in FPTF group could be sutured directly, while all the 24 patients in RFFF group received skin grafts from the donor sites. There was no statistically significant difference in the recipient area arteries between two groups of flaps (P=0.10), with more commonly using of the facial artery (RFFF: FPTF=21∶27), but there was significant difference in the recipient area veins (P<0.01), with more commonly using of the external jugular vein in RFFF (14/24) than FPTF (4/32) and the posterior facial vein in FPTF (27/32) than RFFF (9/24). There were 10 recipient complications and 3 donor complications in RFFF group; no recipient complication and 3 donor complications occurred in FPTF group. With patient's subjective evaluation of the donor site at 12 months after surgery, FPTF was better than RFFF (χ²=22.241, P<0.01). Conclusions: FPTF is an alternative to RFFF in head and neck reconstruction and has unique advantages in aesthetics and clinical application.