Comparison of three kinds of free flaps used in patients with oral and oropharyngeal tumors.
10.3760/cma.j.cn115330-20210719-00468
- Author:
Wang Hu ZHENG
1
;
Chao LI
1
;
Yu Qiu ZHOU
2
;
Yu Dong NING
2
;
Chun Yan SHUI
2
;
Yong Cong CAI
2
;
Rong Hao SUN
2
;
Jian JIANG
2
;
Xu WANG
3
;
Tian Qi HE
3
;
Xiao Lei CHEN
4
;
Wei LIU
3
;
Yu Yao ZHANG
3
;
Gang QIN
4
Author Information
1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University,Luzhou 646200, Sichuan Province, China Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Sichuan Cancer Research Institute, Sichuan Cancer Prevention and Cure Center, Cancer Hospital Affiliate to School of Medicine, Electronic Science and Technology, Chengdu 610041, China.
2. Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Sichuan Cancer Research Institute, Sichuan Cancer Prevention and Cure Center, Cancer Hospital Affiliate to School of Medicine, Electronic Science and Technology, Chengdu 610041, China.
3. Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Sichuan Cancer Research Institute, Sichuan Cancer Prevention and Cure Center, Cancer Hospital Affiliate to School of Medicine, Electronic Science and Technology, Chengdu 610041, China Department of Clinical Medicine, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu 610041, China.
4. Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University,Luzhou 646200, Sichuan Province, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Female;
Forearm/surgery*;
Free Tissue Flaps;
Humans;
Male;
Oropharyngeal Neoplasms/surgery*;
Quality of Life;
Reconstructive Surgical Procedures;
Thigh/surgery*
- From:
Chinese Journal of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery
2021;56(11):1150-1157
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To compare the recovery and quality of life of patients with oral and oropharyngeal tumors treated with three kinds of free soft tissue flaps. Methods: The clinical data of 103 patients, including 66 males and 37 females, aged 26-74 years, who underwent primary repair of defects after resection of oral and oropharyngeal tumors in Sichuan Tumor Hospital from July 2014 to August 2020 were analyzed. Anterolateral thigh flap (ALTF) was used in 43 patients, radial forearm free flap (RFFF) in 45 patients, and lateral arm free flap (LAFF) in 15 patients. Postoperative qualities of life of patients were evaluated by the university of Washington quality of life questionnaire and oral health impact scale (HIP-14 Chinese edition). SPSS 23.0 software was used for statistical analysis. Results: The T staging of RFFF or LAFF group was significantly lower than that of ALTF group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in mean flap areas between ALTF group ((55.87±27.38) cm2) and LAFF group ((49.93±19.44) cm2), while RFFF group had smaller mean flap area ((33.18±6.05) cm2) than ALTF group (t=5.311, P<0.001) and LAFF group (t=3.284, P=0.005). In terms of oral functions including swallowing, mastication, taste and spitmouth, there were no significant differences between LAFF group and RFFF group (P>0.05), but both groups had better oral functions than ALTF group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in appearance scores between LAFF group (75(75, 75)) and ALTF group (75(75,75) vs.75(75,75),Z=-1.532, P=0.126), and both groups had higher scores than RFFF group (50(50, 75),Z values were -3.447 and -3.005 respectively, P<0.05). RFFF group had higher speech score (100(67, 100)) than LAFF group (67(50, 76),Z=-2.480, P<0.05) and ALTF group (67(33, 67),Z=-5.414, P<0.05). ALTF group had lower mean score of quality of life than RFFF group [72(56,77) vs.79(69, 89),Z=-3.070, P<0.05), but there was no statistical difference in the mean scores of qualities of life between ALTF group and LAFF group (Z=1.754, P=0.079). According to the evaluation of oral health impact scale (HIP-14 Chinese version) 1 year after surgery, individual item scores and the average score of all items in ALTF group were lower than those in RFFF and LAFF groups (P<0.05), with no significant difference between RFFF group and LAFF group (P>0.05). Conclusions: RFFF has unique advantages for small tissue defects, while ALTF is suitable for large tissue defects, such as buccal penetrating defect, whole tongue and near whole tongue defect, and LAFF is a compromise choice between ALTF and RFFF. ALTF is inferior to RFFF and LAFF in oral functional reconstruction, including swallowing, chewing, taste and spittle. ALTF and LAFF are superior to RFFF in postoperative appearance.
