Shuai Wang1, Shoucheng Yin1, Ze-Liang Zhang1, Xingzhou Su1, Zhong-Fei Xu2. 1. Resident, Departments of Oromaxillofacial-Head and Neck Surgery and Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang, China. 2. Professor, Departments of Oromaxillofacial-Head and Neck Surgery and Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang, China. Electronic address: xzf7090@hotmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study focused on quality of life for patients in northeast China who underwent oral cancer resection directly before flap reconstruction. In addition, this study compared differences among the radial forearm free flap (RFFF), ulnar forearm free flap (UFFF), and anterolateral thigh flap (ALTF) for defect reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To assess patients' quality of life, the University of Washington Quality of Life and 14-item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) questionnaires were completed 6 months after reconstruction. RESULTS: The flap size of the ALTF group was much larger than that of the UFFF and RFFF groups. The appearance score of the ALTF group was markedly higher than that of the UFFF and RFFF groups, whereas these groups had a much higher swallowing score than the ALTF group. Furthermore, the ALTF group had much lower social disability OHIP-14 scores than the RFFF group. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that all 3 reconstruction methods are similar, but that the ALTF has a slight advantage over the UFFF and RFFF.
PURPOSE: This study focused on quality of life for patients in northeast China who underwent oral cancer resection directly before flap reconstruction. In addition, this study compared differences among the radial forearm free flap (RFFF), ulnar forearm free flap (UFFF), and anterolateral thigh flap (ALTF) for defect reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To assess patients' quality of life, the University of Washington Quality of Life and 14-item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) questionnaires were completed 6 months after reconstruction. RESULTS: The flap size of the ALTF group was much larger than that of the UFFF and RFFF groups. The appearance score of the ALTF group was markedly higher than that of the UFFF and RFFF groups, whereas these groups had a much higher swallowing score than the ALTF group. Furthermore, the ALTF group had much lower social disability OHIP-14 scores than the RFFF group. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that all 3 reconstruction methods are similar, but that the ALTF has a slight advantage over the UFFF and RFFF.