Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35(01): 022-030
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1653983
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Endoscopic-Assisted Radial Forearm Free Flap Harvest: A Novel Technique to Reduce Donor Site Morbidity

Emily A. Van Kouwenberg
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York
,
Alan Yan
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York
,
Ashit Patel
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York
,
Rick L. McLaughlin
2   Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York
,
Patricia Northrup
2   Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York
,
Melanie Cintron
2   Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York
,
Richard L. Agag
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
Further Information

Publication History

21 November 2017

12 April 2018

Publication Date:
12 June 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The radial forearm free flap (RFFF) remains a workhorse flap but can have significant donor site morbidity. The authors developed a novel technique for endoscopic-assisted RFFF (ERFFF) harvest and hypothesized improved donor site morbidity.

Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted evaluating patients who underwent ERFFF or RFFF by a single surgeon for head and neck reconstruction between November 2011 and July 2016; outcomes and complications were compared. A telephone survey was conducted to assess patient satisfaction with donor site appearance and function.

Results Twenty-seven ERFFF and 13 RFFF harvests were performed. The cephalic vein was less commonly incorporated in ERFFF patients compared with RFFF patients (3.70 and 38.46%, respectively, p = 0.0095). ERFFF patients had lower rates of wound healing complications (0% vs. 15.38%, p = 0.10) and perfusion-related complications than RFFF patients (3.70% vs. 23.08%, p = 0.092). Fewer ERFFF patients reported a desire for a more normal appearance (42.86% vs. 71.43%, p = 0.361). The ERFFF group had a higher functional score (64.29% vs. 44.44%, p = 0.101), reporting lower rates of associated discomfort (35.71% vs. 85.71%, p = 0.063). None of the differences in rates of complications or patient-reported outcomes between the groups reached statistical significance.

Conclusion ERFFF is safe and effective alternative to RFFF, with similar operative time, similar pedicle safety, and elimination of the lengthy forearm incision. Unnecessary cephalic vein dissection can be avoided with endoscopic visualization of the venae comitantes. Further research with a larger sample size and better standardization is needed to assess effects on donor-site morbidity.

Keywords

radial forearm - endoscopic - morbidity

Note

Data were published to PRSGo in an abstract format as a result of acceptance for presentation at ASPS; the manuscript has not been previously published and is not being considered for publication elsewhere.


 

  • References

  • 1 Neligan PC. Head and neck reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (02) 260e-269e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rigby MH, Taylor SM. Soft tissue reconstruction of the oral cavity: a review of current options. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013; 21 (04) 311-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Selvaggi G, Monstrey S, Hoebeke P. , et al. Donor-site morbidity of the radial forearm free flap after 125 phalloplasties in gender identity disorder. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 118 (05) 1171-1177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Richardson D, Fisher SE, Vaughan ED, Brown JS. Radial forearm flap donor-site complications and morbidity: a prospective study. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 99 (01) 109-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Zenn MR, Hidalgo DA, Cordeiro PG, Shah JP, Strong EW, Kraus DH. Current role of the radial forearm free flap in mandibular reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 99 (04) 1012-1017
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Seify H, Jones G, Sigurdson L. , et al. Endoscopic harvest of four muscle flaps: safe and effective techniques. Ann Plast Surg 2002; 48 (02) 173-179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Iglesias M, Gonzalez-Chapa DR. Endoscopic latissimus dorsi muscle flap for breast reconstruction after skin-sparing total mastectomy: report of 14 cases. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2013; 37 (04) 719-727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lin CH, Wei FC, Levin LS, Chen MC. Donor-site morbidity comparison between endoscopically assisted and traditional harvest of free latissimus dorsi muscle flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 104 (04) 1070-1077 , quiz 1078
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Missana MC, Pomel C. Endoscopic latissimus dorsi flap harvesting. Am J Surg 2007; 194 (02) 164-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Pomel C, Missana MC, Atallah D, Lasser P. Endoscopic muscular latissimus dorsi flap harvesting for immediate breast reconstruction after skin sparing mastectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003; 29 (02) 127-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Selber JC, Baumann DP, Holsinger FC. Robotic latissimus dorsi muscle harvest: a case series. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129 (06) 1305-1312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Romanini MV, Vidal C, Godoy J, Morovic CG. Laparoscopically harvested omental flap for breast reconstruction in Poland syndrome. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013; 66 (11) e303-e309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Moreno MA. Video-assisted harvesting of anterolateral thigh free flap: technique validation and initial results. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013; 149 (02) 219-225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bleiziffer S, Hettich I, Eisenhauer B. , et al. Patency rates of endoscopically harvested radial arteries one year after coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007; 134 (03) 649-656
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Grus T, Lambert L, Grusová G, Rohn V, Lindner J. Endoscopic versus mini-invasive radial artery graft harvesting for purposes of aortocoronary bypass. Prague Med Rep 2011; 112 (02) 115-123
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Navia JL, Brozzi N, Chiu J. , et al. Endoscopic versus open radial artery harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting. Scand Cardiovasc J 2011; 45 (05) 279-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Shapira OM, Eskenazi BR, Hunter CT. , et al. Endoscopic versus conventional radial artery harvest--is smaller better?. J Card Surg 2006; 21 (04) 329-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Shapira OM, Eskenazi BR, Anter E. , et al. Endoscopic versus conventional radial artery harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting: functional and histologic assessment of the conduit. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 131 (02) 388-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Frederick JW, Sweeny L, Carroll WR, Peters GE, Rosenthal EL. Outcomes in head and neck reconstruction by surgical site and donor site. Laryngoscope 2013; 123 (07) 1612-1617
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Vriens JPM, Acosta R, Soutar DS, Webster MHC. Recovery of sensation in the radial forearm free flap in oral reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996; 98 (04) 649-656
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lutz BS, Wei FC, Chang SC, Yang KH, Chen IH. Donor site morbidity after suprafascial elevation of the radial forearm flap: a prospective study in 95 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 103 (01) 132-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Avery C. Prospective study of the septocutaneous radial free flap and suprafascial donor site. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 45 (08) 611-616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hekner DD, Abbink JH, van Es RJ, Rosenberg A, Koole R, Van Cann EM. Donor-site morbidity of the radial forearm free flap versus the ulnar forearm free flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (02) 387-393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Knott PD, Seth R, Waters HH. , et al. Short-term donor site morbidity: a comparison of the anterolateral thigh and radial forearm fasciocutaneous free flaps. Head Neck 2016; 38 (Suppl. 01) E945-E948
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Adani R, Rossati L, Tarallo L, Corain M. Use of Integra artificial dermis to reduce donor site morbidity after pedicle flaps in hand surgery. J Hand Surg Am 2014; 39 (11) 2228-2234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Gravvanis AI, Tsoutsos DA, Iconomou T, Gremoutis G. The use of Integra artificial dermis to minimize donor-site morbidity after suprafascial dissection of the radial forearm flap. Microsurgery 2007; 27 (07) 583-587
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Murray RC, Gordin EA, Saigal K, Leventhal D, Krein H, Heffelfinger RN. Reconstruction of the radial forearm free flap donor site using Integra artificial dermis. Microsurgery 2011; 31 (02) 104-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Rowe NM, Morris L, Delacure MD. Acellular dermal composite allografts for reconstruction of the radial forearm donor site. Ann Plast Surg 2006; 57 (03) 305-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar