Objective:To compare the efficacy of radial forearm flap and anterolateral thigh flap in repairing soft tissue defects after oral cancer surgery and to explore their indications.Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data of patients with oral cancer treated at the Department of Stomatology, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, from May 2019 to February 2023. Patients were divided into two groups based on the repair method: the radial forearm flap group and the anterolateral thigh flap group. The groups were compared in the following aspects. (1) Surgical parameters including defect area after oral cancer resection, flap area, flap preparation time, operation time, and length of hospital stay. (2) Inflammatory markers (interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein levels) measured 1 day before surgery and 1 day after surgery. (3) Flap survival rate was calculated. (4) Complication rates was calculated in the flap donor area and infection rates in the oral recipient area within 6 months postoperatively. (5) Six months postoperatively, the patient’s oral function was assessed by a physician using the University of Washington quality of life scale (UW-QOL). The evaluation included assessments of oral opening, speech, and eating functions. Each parameter was scored on a scale of 0 to 10 (higher scores indicated better recovery). (6) Quality of life was assessed using the 36-item short form health survey scale(SF-36) at 2, 4 and 6 months postoperatively, with scores ranging from 0 to 100 (higher scores indicated better quality of life). (7) Patient satisfaction was assessed at 6 months postoperatively, with satisfaction levels categorized as satisfied, basically satisfied, and dissatisfied. The satisfaction rate was calculated as (satisfied + basically satisfied ) cases / total cases in each group × 100%. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 22.0. Measurement data were expressed as Mean±SD, and comparisons between groups were conducted using t-tests. Count data were expressed as cases and (or) percentages, and comparisons were made using chi-square test. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results:The radial forearm flap group included 48 cases (32 males, 16 females), aged (49.3±5.0) years, with a body mass index (BMI) of (23.0±1.1) kg/m 2 and a disease course of (6.5±2.1) months. The group had 21 cases of tongue cancer, 12 of floor of mouth cancer, and 15 of buccal cancer, including 40 squamous cell carcinomas and 8 basal cell carcinomas. The anterolateral thigh flap group included 32 cases (20 males, 12 females), aged (50.1±5.0) years, with a BMI of (23.0±1.0) kg/m 2 and a disease course of (7.0±2.2) months. The group had 16 cases of tongue cancer, 7 cases of floor of mouth cancer, and 9 cases of buccal cancer, including 27 squamous cell carcinomas and 5 basal cell carcinomas. There were no significant differences in gender, age, BMI, disease course, tumor location, or pathological type between the two groups ( P>0.05). The defect area after oral cancer resection was smaller in the radial forearm flap group[ (39.0±1.3) cm 2 ] compared to the anterolateral thigh flap group[ (40.3±2.2) cm 2] ( t=3.32, P=0.001). There were no significant differences in flap area, flap preparation time, or length of hospital stay between the two groups ( P>0.05). The operation time was shorter in the radial forearm flap group [(5.1±1.1) h] compared to the anterolateral thigh flap group [(6.8±2.8) h] ( t=0.26, P<0.001). There were no significant differences in interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein levels between the two groups 1 day before surgery and 1 day after surgery ( P>0.05). The flap survival rates were 97.9% (47/48) in the radial forearm flap group and 93.8% (30/32) in the anterolateral thigh flap group, with no significant difference( P>0.05). Postoperative donor site complications mainly included infection, pigmentation, itching, etc. The overall incidence of complications in the donor site of the radial forearm flap [33.3% (16/48)] was higher than that in the anterolateral thigh flap group [12.5% (4/32)], and the difference was statistically significant ( χ2=4.44, P=0.035). There was no significant difference in infection rates in the oral recipient area between the two groups ( P>0.05). Six months postoperatively, the average scores for oral opening, speech, and eating functions were above 7 in both groups, with no significant differences ( P>0.05). Quality of life scores improved over time in both groups, with average scores above 90 at 6 months postoperatively, and no significant differences at any time point ( P>0.05). The patient satisfaction rate was 91.7% (44/48) in the radial forearm flap group and 90.6% (29/32) in the anterolateral thigh flap group, with no significant difference ( P>0.05). Conclusion:Both radial forearm flap and anterolateral thigh flap can effectively repair soft tissue defects after oral cancer resection, significantly improving patients’oral function. The anterolateral thigh flap provides sufficient tissue volume and is suitable for patients with larger defect areas. The radial forearm flap is suitable for patients with a smaller defect area after oral cancer resection. Its surgical procedure is relatively less complex and offers an advantage in reducing surgery time. However, the donor site complications are higher with the radial forearm flap compared to the anterolateral thigh flap.

Objective:To compare the efficacy of radial forearm flap and anterolateral thigh flap in repairing soft tissue defects after oral cancer surgery and to explore their indications.Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data of patients with oral cancer treated at the Department of Stomatology, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, from May 2019 to February 2023. Patients were divided into two groups based on the repair method: the radial forearm flap group and the anterolateral thigh flap group. The groups were compared in the following aspects. (1) Surgical parameters including defect area after oral cancer resection, flap area, flap preparation time, operation time, and length of hospital stay. (2) Inflammatory markers (interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein levels) measured 1 day before surgery and 1 day after surgery. (3) Flap survival rate was calculated. (4) Complication rates was calculated in the flap donor area and infection rates in the oral recipient area within 6 months postoperatively. (5) Six months postoperatively, the patient’s oral function was assessed by a physician using the University of Washington quality of life scale (UW-QOL). The evaluation included assessments of oral opening, speech, and eating functions. Each parameter was scored on a scale of 0 to 10 (higher scores indicated better recovery). (6) Quality of life was assessed using the 36-item short form health survey scale(SF-36) at 2, 4 and 6 months postoperatively, with scores ranging from 0 to 100 (higher scores indicated better quality of life). (7) Patient satisfaction was assessed at 6 months postoperatively, with satisfaction levels categorized as satisfied, basically satisfied, and dissatisfied. The satisfaction rate was calculated as (satisfied + basically satisfied ) cases / total cases in each group × 100%. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 22.0. Measurement data were expressed as Mean±SD, and comparisons between groups were conducted using t-tests. Count data were expressed as cases and (or) percentages, and comparisons were made using chi-square test. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results:The radial forearm flap group included 48 cases (32 males, 16 females), aged (49.3±5.0) years, with a body mass index (BMI) of (23.0±1.1) kg/m 2 and a disease course of (6.5±2.1) months. The group had 21 cases of tongue cancer, 12 of floor of mouth cancer, and 15 of buccal cancer, including 40 squamous cell carcinomas and 8 basal cell carcinomas. The anterolateral thigh flap group included 32 cases (20 males, 12 females), aged (50.1±5.0) years, with a BMI of (23.0±1.0) kg/m 2 and a disease course of (7.0±2.2) months. The group had 16 cases of tongue cancer, 7 cases of floor of mouth cancer, and 9 cases of buccal cancer, including 27 squamous cell carcinomas and 5 basal cell carcinomas. There were no significant differences in gender, age, BMI, disease course, tumor location, or pathological type between the two groups ( P>0.05). The defect area after oral cancer resection was smaller in the radial forearm flap group[ (39.0±1.3) cm 2 ] compared to the anterolateral thigh flap group[ (40.3±2.2) cm 2] ( t=3.32, P=0.001). There were no significant differences in flap area, flap preparation time, or length of hospital stay between the two groups ( P>0.05). The operation time was shorter in the radial forearm flap group [(5.1±1.1) h] compared to the anterolateral thigh flap group [(6.8±2.8) h] ( t=0.26, P<0.001). There were no significant differences in interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein levels between the two groups 1 day before surgery and 1 day after surgery ( P>0.05). The flap survival rates were 97.9% (47/48) in the radial forearm flap group and 93.8% (30/32) in the anterolateral thigh flap group, with no significant difference( P>0.05). Postoperative donor site complications mainly included infection, pigmentation, itching, etc. The overall incidence of complications in the donor site of the radial forearm flap [33.3% (16/48)] was higher than that in the anterolateral thigh flap group [12.5% (4/32)], and the difference was statistically significant ( χ2=4.44, P=0.035). There was no significant difference in infection rates in the oral recipient area between the two groups ( P>0.05). Six months postoperatively, the average scores for oral opening, speech, and eating functions were above 7 in both groups, with no significant differences ( P>0.05). Quality of life scores improved over time in both groups, with average scores above 90 at 6 months postoperatively, and no significant differences at any time point ( P>0.05). The patient satisfaction rate was 91.7% (44/48) in the radial forearm flap group and 90.6% (29/32) in the anterolateral thigh flap group, with no significant difference ( P>0.05). Conclusion:Both radial forearm flap and anterolateral thigh flap can effectively repair soft tissue defects after oral cancer resection, significantly improving patients’oral function. The anterolateral thigh flap provides sufficient tissue volume and is suitable for patients with larger defect areas. The radial forearm flap is suitable for patients with a smaller defect area after oral cancer resection. Its surgical procedure is relatively less complex and offers an advantage in reducing surgery time. However, the donor site complications are higher with the radial forearm flap compared to the anterolateral thigh flap.