Xin-Rong Ou1, Tong Su1, Long Huang2, Can-Hua Jiang1, Feng Guo1, Ning Li1, An-Jie Min1, Xin-Chun Jian1. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410008, China. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410008, China. Electronic address: huanglong0129@126.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to introduce submandibular-facial artery island flaps (S-FAIF), including the perforator flap, and to evaluate their application for intraoral reconstruction in comparison with submental artery perforator flaps (SMAPF). METHODS: Ninety-six patients who underwent intraoral reconstruction using an S-FAIF (n = 34) or SMAPF (n = 62) after cancer resection were recruited in this study. The flap characteristics (viz., pedicle length, flap size, venous drainage pattern, and harvest time), short-term outcomes (viz., flap partial loss, intraoral wound dehiscence, fistula, and wound infection), and long-term morbidity (viz., facial nerve palsy, neck motion restriction, and hair growth) were compared. RESULTS: Nine S-FAIFs were authentic perforator flaps pedicled by level Ⅰ facial artery perforators, while the rest were island flaps based on level Ⅱ facial artery perforators. The survival rates of S-FAIF and SMAPF were both 100 percent. Flap partial loss occurred in two patients in each group. The pedicle length of S-FAIF was shorter than that of SMAPF (p < 0.001). Statistics analysis revealed no significant difference regarding flap size, venous drainage pattern, short-term outcomes, neck motion restriction, or facial nerve palsy between the groups. S-FAIF required less harvest time (p < 0.001) and experienced less hair growth when compared to SMAPF (p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: The S-FAIF is a robust and reliable novel flap and on par with SMAPF for reconstruction of small and medium-sized intraoral defects. It is preferred to SMAPF when technical requirements for flap harvest and hair problems are considered. It should be supplemented to the armamentarium for intraoral reconstruction.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to introduce submandibular-facial artery island flaps (S-FAIF), including the perforator flap, and to evaluate their application for intraoral reconstruction in comparison with submental artery perforator flaps (SMAPF). METHODS: Ninety-six patients who underwent intraoral reconstruction using an S-FAIF (n = 34) or SMAPF (n = 62) after cancer resection were recruited in this study. The flap characteristics (viz., pedicle length, flap size, venous drainage pattern, and harvest time), short-term outcomes (viz., flap partial loss, intraoral wound dehiscence, fistula, and wound infection), and long-term morbidity (viz., facial nerve palsy, neck motion restriction, and hair growth) were compared. RESULTS: Nine S-FAIFs were authentic perforator flaps pedicled by level Ⅰ facial artery perforators, while the rest were island flaps based on level Ⅱ facial artery perforators. The survival rates of S-FAIF and SMAPF were both 100 percent. Flap partial loss occurred in two patients in each group. The pedicle length of S-FAIF was shorter than that of SMAPF (p < 0.001). Statistics analysis revealed no significant difference regarding flap size, venous drainage pattern, short-term outcomes, neck motion restriction, or facial nerve palsy between the groups. S-FAIF required less harvest time (p < 0.001) and experienced less hair growth when compared to SMAPF (p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: The S-FAIF is a robust and reliable novel flap and on par with SMAPF for reconstruction of small and medium-sized intraoral defects. It is preferred to SMAPF when technical requirements for flap harvest and hair problems are considered. It should be supplemented to the armamentarium for intraoral reconstruction.