| Literature DB >> 32532274 |
Nan-Chin Lin1,2, Shih-Lung Lin3, Kuo-Yang Tsai4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radial free forearm flaps is indicated patients with total or near-total defects in their lower lip. The purpose of our study was to evaluate a simple and effective barrel-shaped design of the radial free forearm flap for lower lip reconstruction and to compare its clinical outcomes with those of a conventional rectangular shaped free forearm flap.Entities:
Keywords: Forearm free flap; Lip defect surgery; Lower lip carcinoma surgery; Lower lip reconstruction; Quality of life
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32532274 PMCID: PMC7291574 DOI: 10.1186/s12893-020-00792-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Surg ISSN: 1471-2482 Impact factor: 2.102
Fig. 1Illustrates the barrel-shaped design of the radial forearm free flap. (a) If the horizontal defect was “X” cm and (b) the vertical defect from the outer skin to the inner mucosa surface was “Y” cm. (c) The flap was harvested with a longitudinal dimension of X − 1 cm and with a transverse dimension of Y + 2 cm in a barrel-like shape
Fig. 2In the clinical case, a the horizontal defect was 7 cm and the vertical defect from the outer skin to the inner mucosa surface was 4 cm. b The free forearm flap was harvested in a barrel-like shape with a dimension of 6 × 6 cm
Fig. 3In the postoperative frontal view (a) and lateral view (b), the middle portion of the flap will be slightly convex to restore the oral competence. At the same time, shortening the longitudinal length of the harvested flap can maintain some tension to prevent sagging of the flap. (c) The image at the 1-year follow-up still shows a very good result in the frontal view
Fig. 4The image at the 2-year follow-up, the frontal view (a) and lateral view (b) show good oral competence after surgery. In the lip functional test, (c) and (d) show that the patient can use his lip to hold the stick showing that the barrel-shaped design of radial forearm free flap can restore oral competence
Clinical characteristics of both groups
| Case | Control | |
|---|---|---|
| 61.25 ± 8.44 | 57.86 ± 6.03 | |
| 8 (100.0) | 10 (90.9) | |
| 0 (0) | 1 (9.1) | |
| 22.84 ± 3.52 | 24.57 ± 4.73 | |
| 0 (0) | 1 (9.1) | |
| 4 (50.0) | 10 (71.4) | |
| 4 (50.0) | 2 (14.3) | |
| 0 (0) | 2 (14.3) | |
| 8 (100.0) | 14 (100.0) | |
| 8 (100.0) | 14 (100.0) | |
| 1 (12.5) | 3 (21.4) | |
| 5 (62.5) | 7 (50.0) | |
| 2 (25.0) | 4 (28.6) | |
| 4 (50.0) | 10 (71.4) | |
| 4 (50.0) | 4 (28.6) | |
| 8 (100.0) | 12 (85.7) | |
| 0 (0) | 2 (14.3) | |
| 8 (100.0) | 14 (100.0) | |
| 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
EORTC QOL-HN 35 scores were evaluated preoperatively (t1 in case group and t1’ in control group) and post-operatively (1-year follow up, t2 in case group and t2’ in control group). Mean (standard deviation), Median (interquartile range) and p values (Mann-Whitney U test) of the change in EORTC QOL-HN 35 scores over time between t1 and t2, and between t1’ and t2’
| Changes in EORTC QOL-HN 35 | EORTC QOL-HN 35 scores | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case, n = 8 | Control, n = 14 | ||||||||
| t1 (Mean) | t2 (Mean) | t2 − t1 (Mean) | t2 − t1 (Median) | t1’ (Mean) | t2’ (Mean) | t2’ − t1’ (Mean) | t2’ − t1’ (Median) | ||
| 31.250 | 34.375 | 3.125 ± 5.786 | 0 (0–6.250) | 33.750 | 32.857 | −0.893 ± 3.144a | 0 (−6.250–0) | 0.1251 | |
| 25.0 | 28.125 | 3.125 ± 3.341 | 3.125 (0–6.250) | 31.25 | 60.714 | 29.464 ± 14.998 | 25.0 (18.750–43.750) | ||
| 25.0 | 28.125 | 3.125 ± 5.786 | 0 (0–6.250) | 25.0 | 35.714 | 10.714 ± 22.391 | 0 (0–12.50) | 0.7409 | |
| 25.0 | 29.167 | 4.167 ± 4.454 | 4.167 (0–8.333) | 26.189 | 52.379 | 26.190 ± 24.646 | 25.0 (8.333–4.167) | ||
| 28.125 | 43.750 | 15.625 ± 13.774 | 9.375 (6.25–25.0) | 30.357 | 60.714 | 30.357 ± 14.052 | 25.0 (18.750–50.0) | ||
| 25.0 | 43.750 | 18.75 ± 4.432 | 17.50 (15.0–22.5) | 25.0 | 52.571 | 27.571 ± 9.982 | 25.0 (20.0–35.0) | ||
| 25.0 | 31.250 | 6.250 ± 11.573 | 0 (0–12.5) | 25.0 | 35.714 | 10.714 ± 18.898 | 0 (0–25.0) | 0.7409 | |
| 31.250 | 37.50 | 6.250 ± 11.573 | 0 (0–12.5) | 39.286 | 46.429 | 7.143 ± 11.720 | 0 (0–25.0) | 0.8678 | |
| 37.50 | 37.50 | 0 | 0 | 39.286 | 50.0 | 10.714 ± 18.898 | 0 (0–25.0) | 0.1370 | |
| 31.250 | 43.750 | 12.50 ± 13.363 | 12.50 (0–25.0) | 28.571 | 57.142 | 28.571 ± 9.078 | 25.0 (25.0–25.0) | ||
| 25.0 | 25.750 | 0.750 ± 0.886 | 0.50 (0–1.50) | 25.0 | 39.286 | 14.286 ± 12.839 | 25.0 (0–25.0) | 0.1503 | |
| 25.0 | 25.0 | 0 | 0 | 25.0 | 28.571 | 3.571 ± 9.078 | 0 | 0.3603 | |
| 50.0 | 52.5 | 2.50 ± 3.273 | 1.25 (0–5.0) | 51.429 | 51.429 | 0 | 0 | 0.1094 | |
p-value by Mann–Whitney’s U-test
a A negative value indicates pain relief