Abstract
The vascularised forearm free flap is a workhorse flap for the reconstruction of many
types of soft tissue defects. However, the difference in donor-site morbidity between
the radial forearm free flap (RFFF) and ulnar forearm free flap (UFFF) remains controversial.
This study aimed to compare the donor-site outcomes of RFFF and UFFF. We searched
PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Chinese
Biomedical Literature Database up to August 10, 2021, to identify studies on donor-site
outcomes of RFFF versus UFFF in patients undergoing reconstructive surgery. Two authors
individually extracted data and performed quality assessments of the selected articles.
The overall morbidity and overall effect of individual complications of the donor
site were analysed. In total, 288 cases from five studies were included in our analysis.
The UFFF group was significantly superior to the RFFF group regarding overall morbidity
and overall effect of individual complications of the donor site. The morbidity of
UFFF donor sites was significantly lower than that of RFFF, and UFFF may be an ideal
substitute for RFFF in reconstructive surgery. However, additional large-scale studies
are necessary to confirm this finding.
Keywords
Abbreviations:
RFFF (radialforearmfreeflap), UFFF (ulnar forearm free flap), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), CBM (Chinese Biomedical Literature Database), RR (relative risk), CI (confidence interval), MH (Mantel-Haenszel), DL (DerSimonian and Laird)To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
Yang G, Chen B, Gao Y, et al. Forearm free skin flap transplantation: a report of 56 cases. 198Br J Plast Surg 1997;50:162–5.
- Donor-site morbidity of the radial forearm free flap versus the ulnar forearm free flap.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013; 132: 387-393
- Prospective comparison of donor-site morbidity following radial forearm and ulnar artery perforator flap harvest.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020; 145: 1267-1274
- Aesthetic and functional outcomes of radial forearm flap donor site reconstruction with biosynthetic skin substitutes.J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018; 71: 925-928
- The ulnar fasciocutaneous free flap in head and neck reconstruction.Laryngoscope. 2002; 112: 2155-2160
- Quality of life in patients after reconstruction with the supraclavicular artery island flap (SCAIF) versus the radial free forearm flap (RFFF).Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2019; 276: 2311-2318
Bertino G, Lepenne Y, Tinelli C, et al. Radial vs ulnar forearm flap: a preliminary study of donor site morbidity. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2019;39:322-8 (paper in Italian).
- Complications of radial forearm flap donor sites.Br J Plast Surg. 1986; 39: 176-178
- Morbidity in the forearm flap donor arm.Br J Plast Surg. 1987; 40: 207-212
- The ulnar artery forearm free flap.Br J Plast Surg. 1984; 37: 486-492
- Vascular dominance in the forearm.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003; 111: 1891-1898
- Ulnar versus radial forearm flap in head and neck reconstruction: an experimental and clinical study.Head Neck. 2001; 23: 967-971
Dost P. The ulnar artery or the radial artery can be used alternatively in the free underarm flap. Laryngorhinootologie 2001;80:152–5 (paper in German).
- A prospective study on prognostic factors for free-flap reconstructions of head and neck defects.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 38: 666-670
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 1006-1012
- Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses.Eur J Epidemiol. 2010; 25: 603-605
- Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias.Biometrics. 1994; 50: 1088-1101
- Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.BMJ. 1997; 315: 629-634
- Is there an ideal way to close the donor site of radial forearm free flaps?.Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 56: 444-452
- Minimizing free flap donor-site morbidity.Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016; 24: 447-452
- Anterolateral thigh flap donor-site complications and morbidity.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000; 106: 584-589
- A prospective study of donor-site morbidity after anterolateral thigh fasciocutaneous and myocutaneous free flap harvest in 220 patients.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010; 125: 209-214
- Sensory deficit in the donor hand after harvest of radial forearm free flaps.Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006; 44: 100-102
- Evaluation of donor site function and morbidity of the fasciocutaneous radial forearm flap.Laryngoscope. 2004; 114: 1973-1976
- Pharyngoesophageal reconstruction with the ulnar forearm flap.Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998; 124: 1146-1151
- Donor site morbidity of free ulnar forearm flap.Head Neck. 2012; 34: 1434-1439
- The ulnar forearm free flap for the reconstruction of soft tissue defects in the head and neck area: free flap outcome and donor site outcome.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009; 108: 851-854
- Ulnar forearm free flaps in head and neck reconstruction: systematic review of the literature and a case report.Microsurgery. 2014; 34: 68-75
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: November 09, 2021
Accepted:
October 30,
2021
Received:
August 16,
2021
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
