Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg Open 2016; 01(01): 063-066
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1580607
Letter to the Editor: Short Report
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

An Alternative Method of the Direct Closure for the Radial Forearm Flap Donor-Site Defect: Lazy S Double-Opposing Rotation Flaps

Atsumori Hamahata
1   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Saitama Cancer Center, Saitama, Japan
,
Takeshi Beppu
2   Division of Head and Neck Surgery, Saitama Cancer Center, Saitama, Japan
,
Atsuyoshi Osada
3   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Takashi Yamaki
3   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Hiroyuki Sakurai
3   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

17 November 2015

04 February 2016

Publication Date:
22 March 2016 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

The free radial forearm flap remains a workhorse flap for head and neck reconstruction, although perforator flap or super microsurgery has become increasingly popular. Yet donor-site morbidities, including unsightly appearances that may occur when sites are closed via skin graft, cause reconstructive surgeons to be hesitant to use the forearm flap. Elliot et al (1988) reported the direct closure method for donor-site defects of the radial forearm flap using the V–Y flap, and several modifications have been reported based on their methods.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] However, partial skin necrosis sometimes occurs along the lateral side of the flap even though the perforators from ulnar artery are preserved well, and this necrosis leaves ugly wide scarring on patients' forearms ([Fig. 1]). To minimize these drawbacks, simple lazy S double-opposing rotation flaps were designed for the donor site of the radial forearm flap, and the donor-site defect was closed directly. In this report, the details of the method and the outcomes are described.

Zoom Image
Fig. 1 Partial skin necrosis along the lateral side of the flap in V–Y flap closure.
 

  • References

  • 1 Elliot D, Bardsley AF, Batchelor AG, Soutar DS. Direct closure of the radial forearm flap donor defect. Br J Plast Surg 1988; 41 (4) 358-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bardsley AF, Soutar DS, Elliot D, Batchelor AG. Reducing morbidity in the radial forearm flap donor site. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990; 86 (2) 287-292 , discussion 293–294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Shoaib T, Van Niekerk WJ, Morley S, Ellabban MA, Soutar DS. The ulnar artery perforator based islanded V-Y flap closure of the radial forearm flap donor site. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 62 (3) 421-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Avery CM, Pereira J, Brown AE. Suprafascial dissection of the radial forearm flap and donor site morbidity. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001; 30 (1) 37-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hsieh CH, Kuo YR, Yao SF, Liang CC, Jeng SF. Primary closure of radial forearm flap donor defects with a bilobed flap based on the fasciocutaneous perforator of the ulnar artery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113 (5) 1355-1360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Yii NW, Niranjan NS. Fascial flaps based on perforators for reconstruction of defects in the distal forearm. Br J Plast Surg 1999; 52 (7) 534-540
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Masser MR. The preexpanded radial free flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990; 86 (2) 295-301 , discussion 302–303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 van Kampen RJ, Corten EM, Schellekens PP. The split radial forearm flap for lower leg defects. Ann Plast Surg 2014; 73 (5) 535-539
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar