Reconstruction of pharyngoesophageal defects following total laryngectomy poses a significant challenge. The goals of reconstruction are to provide alimentary tract continuity and to restore speech and swallowing functions. Patients with radiotherapy recurrent disease often have unfavourable tissue for healing with a high incidence of pharyngocutaneous fistula. We discuss utilisation of a double skin paddle radial forearm free flap for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction as well as a cutaneous skin defect. A 53-year-old female was referred to our department for reconstruction of her total laryngectomy defect secondary to radio-recurrent right laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma with extra-laryngeal spread. Reconstruction planning was challenging as the patient was an obese, heavy smoker with significantly irradiated neck skin. A tubed radial artery forearm free flap was planned for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction however due to the extent of radiotherapy skin damage; primary closure of the neck defect was not possible. The flap was modified into a double paddle design to reconstruct the pharyngoesophageal defect, with the second skin paddle folded over to reconstruct the cutaneous defect. Multiple reconstructive options have been described in the literature for primary laryngectomy defects. Complex patients with recurrence particularly after neoadjuvant treatment are often poor candidates for reconstruction with poor tissue viability. Providing sufficient and adequate soft-tissue coverage is essential to minimise complications. We have described an intra-operatively planned, novel technique of reconstruction. Pre-operative anticipation may assist in addressing complexities encountered particularly in settings of hostile native skin.

BACKGROUND: Reconstruction post-orbital exenteration serves the dual purpose of expediting healing, laying the groundwork for cosmetic restoration, and minimising complications such as orbitosinusal fistulae. The aim of this study was to introduce a modified \"Ice cream cone\" (ICC) design of the Radial Forearm Free Flap (RFFF) technique used for reconstruction of orbital exenteration cavity, along with the oncological, functional, and aesthetic outcomes.
METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective study between January 2005 and December 2020. Inclusion criteria encompassed patients treated for orbitosinusal malignancies undergoing exenteration with subsequent ICC design of RFFF reconstruction.
RESULTS: Twenty-two patients underwent exenteration with the ICC design of RFFF. At the follow-up conclusion, 65% of patients regularly used orbital prosthesis. The average waiting time until the prosthesis was 10 months. Quality of life questionnaires yielded average RFFF POSAS scores of 23.5 (SD 13,6), cervical POSAS scores of 8 (SD 13,2), and orbital cavity rehabilitation scores of 5.9 (SD: 3,32).
CONCLUSIONS: ICC design of RFFF is a reliable technique. It can be proposed in cases of extended exenteration with a high risk of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) but more generally in cases of total exenteration. This technique facilitates optimal postoperative wound healing and accommodates early radiotherapy. Importantly, the bowl-shaped aspect of the orbital socket supports effective prosthetic rehabilitation for patients opting for orbital prosthesis post-surgery.

This study compares patient-reported functional and aesthetic outcomes of split-thickness skin graft (STSG) versus hatchet flap closure of radial forearm free flap (RFFF) donor site.
Patients with RFFF (2015-2020) were retrospectively identified. Those willing to participate in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) filled out Patient-Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) and Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire (MHOQ).
198 patients met our inclusion criteria and 81 participated in PRO. There was a higher rate of tendon exposure in STSG versus hatchet flap (11 vs. 1, p = 0.0019), but a lower rate of skin necrosis (5 vs. 16, p = 0.0190) and epidermolysis (1 vs. 12, p = 0.0028). Scar quality in STSG was superior to hatchet flap in all domains of POSAS. MHOQ scores were similar between both groups with no statistical difference in overall scores (p = 0.2165).
STSG appeared to have less compromise in activities of daily living, better satisfaction and improved scar quality than hatchet flap, but a higher rate of tendon exposure.
3 Laryngoscope, 2024.

OBJECTIVE: Radial Forearm Free flap (RFFF) is widely used in head and neck reconstruction, yet its donor site defect remains a significant drawback. The Medial Sural Artery Perforator Free Flap (MSAPFF) is considered an alternative flap to RFFF. This study aims to comprehensively analyze their characteristics, outcomes, and their impact on patient quality of life.
METHODS: All patients who underwent oral cavity reconstruction using RFFF and MSAPFF between February 2017 and April 2023 were included in this study. Flap characteristics, outcomes and post-operative complications were recorded and compared. Subjective donor site morbidity, aesthetic and functional results, and quality of life were also analyzed.
RESULTS: The study included 76 patients: 37 underwent reconstruction with RFFF, and 39 with MSAPFF. There was no significance difference between the RFFF and MSAPFF regarding the success rate (97.2% vs 97.4%), flap size (4.8 × 8.8 cm2 vs 5 × 9.8 cm2), hospital of stay (15.5 days vs 13.5 days) and recipient site complications (P > 0.05). However, MSAPFF showed larger flap thickness (P = 0.001), smaller arterial caliber (P = 0.008), shorter pedicle length (P = 0.001), and longer harvesting time (P < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the pre-and postoperative ranges of wrist and ankle movements or in recipient site complications. MSAPFF showed a significant difference in donor site morbidity (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The MSAPFF is an excellent alternative to the RFFF for repairing oral cavity defects, with additional advantage of a well-hidden scar on the posterior calf, a larger flap thickness, accepted pedicle length and arterial caliber. However, one should consider the harvesting time and surgical skills required in comparison to the RFFF.
CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the importance of the MSAPFF as an alternative option for RFFF with less donor site morbidity and high success rate in oral cavity reconstruction and improved patient Quality of life after ablative surgery.

BACKGROUND: The radial forearm free flap (RFFF) serves as a workhorse for a variety of reconstructions. Although there are a variety of surgical techniques for donor site closure after RFFF raising, the most common techniques are closure using a split-thickness skin graft (STSG) or a full-thickness skin graft (FTSG). The closure can result in wound complications and function and aesthetic compromise of the forearm and hand. The aim of the planned systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the wound-related, function-related and aesthetics-related outcome associated with full-thickness skin grafts (FTSG) and split-thickness skin grafts (STSG) in radial forearm free flap (RFFF) donor site closure.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines will be followed. Electronic databases and platforms (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)) and clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, the German Clinical Trials Register, the ISRCTN registry, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) will be searched using predefined search terms until 15 January 2024. A rerun of the search will be carried out within 12 months before publication of the review. Eligible studies should report on the occurrence of donor site complications after raising an RFFF and closure of the defect. Included closure techniques are techniques that use full-thickness skin grafts and split-thickness skin grafts. Excluded techniques for closure are primary wound closure without the use of skin graft. Outcomes are considered wound-, functional-, and aesthetics-related. Studies that will be included are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective comparative cohort studies. Case-control studies, studies without a control group, animal studies and cadaveric studies will be excluded. Screening will be performed in a blinded fashion by two reviewers per study. A third reviewer resolves discrepancies. The risk of bias in the original studies will be assessed using the ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tools. Data synthesis will be done using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4.1. If appropriate, a meta-analysis will be conducted. Between-study variability will be assessed using the I2 index. If necessary, R will be used. The quality of evidence for outcomes will eventually be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
CONCLUSIONS: This study\'s findings may help us understand both closure techniques\' complication rates and may have important implications for developing future guidelines for RFFF donor site management. If available data is limited and several questions remain unanswered, additional comparative studies will be needed.
BACKGROUND: The protocol was developed in line with the PRISMA-P extension for protocols and was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 17 September 2023 (registration number CRD42023351903).

The radial forearm free flap (RFFF) is commonly used in the reconstruction of oral cancer patients. Traditional RFFF (TRFFF) techniques, which often require a secondary donor site to repair the forearm defect, may result in a scar extending to the dorsal hand. This can lead to significant functional and aesthetic concerns in the forearm. We designed a modified RFFF (MRFFF) that incorporates a glasses-shaped flap and features deep venous drainage. To evaluate its effectiveness we conducted a retrospective chart review of 105 patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma who underwent reconstructive surgery between 2018 and 2022. These patients were treated either with a TRFFF (n = 60) or the newly developed MRFFF (n = 45). Our inclusion criteria, guided by preliminary surgical experience prior to initiating the study, stipulated that single oral defects should be no larger than 6 × 6 cm2, and adjacent double defects no larger than 3 × 6 cm2. Flap size, pedicle length, harvesting duration, and anastomosis during the surgical procedure were compared between the two techniques. Preoperative and postoperative oral function, recurrence, mortality, and dorsal scarring were recorded. One-week, one-month, and six-month postoperative subjective aesthetics assessments, and self-reported postoperative donor hand function, were measured using the Michigan hand questionnaire (MHQ). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of flap size, pedicle length, harvesting time, anastomosis time, postoperative oral function, recurrence, and mortality. However, patients with a MRFFF did not require a second donor graft site and did not have scars extending to the dorsal forearm. They also had significantly improved postoperative aesthetic outcomes (1 week: 70.6%, 1 month: 62.2%) and donor hand function (1 week: 54.6%, 1 month: 40.4%) compared with the TRFFF group (p < 0.001). The MRFFF eliminates the need for secondary donor sites and improves primary donor site outcomes. It is versatile and can be employed for either single or composite oral defects. Through extensive case studies, we have defined its specific scope: it is suitable for single defects measuring no more than 6 × 6 cm2, or for composite defects no larger than 3 × 6 cm2. Furthermore, it does not compromise the functional recovery of the recipient site, and should be widely adopted for all qualifying patients.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether a tubed fasciocutaneous or jejunal free flap (FCFF and JFF) is preferable for reconstruction of circumferential pharyngolaryngoesophageal defects.
METHODS: All consecutive patients with circumferential pharyngolaryngoesophageal defects reconstructed with an FCFF or JFF between 2000 and 2022 were included. Outcomes of interest were rates of fistulas, strictures, and donor-site complications.
RESULTS: In total, 112 patients were included (35 FCFFs and 77 JFFs). Fistula and stricture rates were significantly lower following JFF compared to FCFF reconstructions, with 12% versus 34% (p = 0.008) and 29% versus 49% (p = 0.04), respectively. Severe donor-site complications leading to surgical intervention or ICU admittance only occurred after JFF reconstructions (18%, p = 0.007).
CONCLUSIONS: The high fistula and stricture rates in FCFF reconstructions and the rate of severe abdominal complications in JFF reconstructions illustrate inherent procedure-specific advantages and disadvantages. Relative pros and cons should be carefully weighed when tailoring treatments to the individual needs of patients.

The radial forearm free flap (RFFF) is a surgical technique for addressing intraoral reconstruction. However, with the limitation of an unavoidable defect at the RFFF donor site, split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs) have been a solution for repairing these defects, but they are not without challenges. This study aimed to evaluate an approach using full-thickness skin grafts (FTSGs), comparing their effectiveness in terms of aesthetics, pain, complications, and scarring. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies comparing FTSG with STSG for RFFF donor site repair in head and neck cancer patients were included. Primary outcomes measured were appearance and pain at the RFFF site, and secondary outcomes were infection, tendon exposure, graft loss, and scar assessment. A meta-analysis and systematic review of eight studies demonstrated that FTSG provided a superior aesthetic appearance at the RFFF donor site compared to STSG (p = 0.001), with low heterogeneity among the studies. The analysis found no significant difference in donor site pain between techniques. There were no significant differences in infection, tendon exposure, or skin graft loss between the two graft methods. This study suggests that FTSG is comparable to STSG in terms of donor site pain, scarring, and infection while offering superior aesthetic outcomes.

Artificial dermal substitutes (ADMs) have been trialled to improve outcomes at the donor site following the harvesting of a radial forearm free flap (RFFF). This systematic review compares donor site aesthetic and functional outcomes, with the use of an ADM versus conventional practice.
The databases Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science (Core Collection), and Scopus were searched for retrospective, prospective, and case-control studies and randomised control trials (RCTs) involving any ADM. Studies with adult patients having undergone RFFF harvesting and donor site repair with an ADM, commenting on appropriate clinical outcomes and without high risk of bias, were included. Direction-of-effect analysis was performed on relevant groupings of studies since heterogeneity in outcome measurement precluded meta-analyses.
Across eight non-comparative studies included, 132 patients had donor site coverage with AlloDerm™, Integra™, Matriderm™, or Rapiderm. Across 11 comparative studies included, 240 patients had donor site coverage with fish-skin matrix, AlloDerm™, amniotic membrane, MegaDerm™, Hyalomatrix, Integra™, or Matriderm™. Five out of 11 comparative studies demonstrated superior aesthetic outcomes with ADMs according to at least one aesthetic metric compared to controls, whilst 6/11 demonstrated superior functional outcomes with ADMs. No study demonstrated poorer aesthetic or functional outcomes with an ADM compared to conventional practice.
In summary, the lack of studies reporting poorer outcomes with them compared to conventional practices, and a cumulative effect direction in their favour, provide strong indications in support of the use of AlloDerm™, Integra™, or Matriderm™ grafts. Further comparative studies, including RCTs, are needed to reinforce these initial indications.

UNASSIGNED: The radial forearm free flap (RFFF) is a commonly used free flap for the reconstruction of orofacial defects because of its versatility and reliability. The donor site is closed with either split or full-thickness skin graft, and one of the common donor site morbidities is skin graft failure. Various techniques to minimise skin graft failure were reported, and we compared the skin graft techniques with and without plaster back slab dressing in the radial forearm donor site.
UNASSIGNED: This is a retrospective study of 75 patients who had RFFF for reconstruction of oral cavity cancer at two different tertiary teaching hospitals in the United Kingdom between April 2015 and March 2020. Thirty-nine patients from Hospital one had volar back slap, bolster dressing and crepe bandage. In contrast, 36 patients from Hospital two had only pressure dressing without a back slab.
UNASSIGNED: The mean age of the study population was 60.65 (P = 0.274). In both groups, two patients had donor site complications. However, there was no significant difference in the donor site skin graft complications with a P = 0.662.
UNASSIGNED: There was no evidence in the literature to support an ideal bandage for skin graft at the RFFF donor site. Our comparison of two techniques of skin graft dressings with and without back slap did not show any difference in the skin graft take, and the volar back slab did not add any additional benefits. The simple use of foam as a bolster dressing without a back slab is ideal for the radial forearm free flap donor site.