BACKGROUND: The anterolateral thigh perforator flap is a common workhorse flap for head and neck reconstruction. The authors present an alternative method using the posteromedial thigh profunda artery perforator flap and compare its characteristics, outcomes, donor-site morbidity, and donor-site cosmesis with those of the anterolateral thigh perforator flap. METHODS: Between May of 2013 and July of 2014, 41 patients undergoing head and neck reconstruction consisting of 18 posteromedial thigh profunda artery perforator flaps and 23 anterolateral thigh perforator flaps were included in this study. Thirty-eight of the patients were men, and the patient age ranged from 32 to 76 years (mean, 54.5 years). RESULTS: The success rate was 100 percent. The mean number of perforators was significantly higher in the profunda artery perforator flap group (2.0 versus 1.5). There was no significant difference in flap elevation time (66.3 minutes versus 60.7 minutes), pedicle length (9.8 cm versus 10 cm), flap area (166.1 cm versus 156.8 cm), flap width (7.7 cm versus 7.7 cm), reexploration rate, recipient-site complication rate, or donor-site complication rate. Based on patient self-assessment, the profunda artery perforator flap group had significantly better donor-site cosmesis than the anterolateral thigh perforator flap group (satisfaction rate, 100 percent versus 70 percent). CONCLUSIONS: The posteromedial thigh profunda artery perforator flap is a good alternative for head and neck reconstruction. It offers flap size, pedicle length, flap elevation time, and success rate comparable to those of the anterolateral thigh perforator flap. It has more perforators and better donor-site cosmesis than the anterolateral thigh perforator flap. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
BACKGROUND: The anterolateral thigh perforator flap is a common workhorse flap for head and neck reconstruction. The authors present an alternative method using the posteromedial thigh profunda artery perforator flap and compare its characteristics, outcomes, donor-site morbidity, and donor-site cosmesis with those of the anterolateral thigh perforator flap. METHODS: Between May of 2013 and July of 2014, 41 patients undergoing head and neck reconstruction consisting of 18 posteromedial thigh profunda artery perforator flaps and 23 anterolateral thigh perforator flaps were included in this study. Thirty-eight of the patients were men, and the patient age ranged from 32 to 76 years (mean, 54.5 years). RESULTS: The success rate was 100 percent. The mean number of perforators was significantly higher in the profunda artery perforator flap group (2.0 versus 1.5). There was no significant difference in flap elevation time (66.3 minutes versus 60.7 minutes), pedicle length (9.8 cm versus 10 cm), flap area (166.1 cm versus 156.8 cm), flap width (7.7 cm versus 7.7 cm), reexploration rate, recipient-site complication rate, or donor-site complication rate. Based on patient self-assessment, the profunda artery perforator flap group had significantly better donor-site cosmesis than the anterolateral thigh perforator flap group (satisfaction rate, 100 percent versus 70 percent). CONCLUSIONS: The posteromedial thigh profunda artery perforator flap is a good alternative for head and neck reconstruction. It offers flap size, pedicle length, flap elevation time, and success rate comparable to those of the anterolateral thigh perforator flap. It has more perforators and better donor-site cosmesis than the anterolateral thigh perforator flap. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.