MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1002/hed.70478

Медицинская библиотека · Head & neck · 2026

Donor-Site Outcomes of the Superficial Circumflex Iliac Artery Perforator Flap Versus Radial Forearm Flap in Unilateral Tongue Reconstruction: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Wei Wang, Xuantao Li, Yiwei Zhong, Xiaoming Lyu, Jie Zhang

СтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

We compared the superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator (SCIP) flap with the radial forearm flap (RFF) to identify limitations restricting its widespread use.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated unilateral tongue reconstruction using propensity score matching for age, sex, T stage, body mass index, and Charlson comorbidity index from a nonfunctional perspective.

RESULTS

Matching 118 patients yielded 27 pairs. Flap survival was comparable. SCIP improved donor-site aesthetics (92.6% vs. 40.7%), preserved strength (100.0% vs. 66.7%), and shortened hospitalization (10.9 vs. 11.9 days). Overall recipient-site and flap-related complications were significantly higher (33.3% vs. 3.7%), driven by Grades I-II events (25.9% vs. 0%). No individual complication category differed significantly. SCIP had a shorter pedicle, more tracheotomies, and greater superior thyroid artery use. Before matching, salvage failed in 5/5 SCIP versus 2/5 RFF cases, an exploratory finding.

CONCLUSIONS

SCIP improves donor-site outcomes, but more low-grade complications and vessel considerations may limit widespread adoption.

Для цитирования: Wei Wang, Xuantao Li, Yiwei Zhong, Xiaoming Lyu, Jie Zhang. Donor-Site Outcomes of the Superficial Circumflex Iliac Artery Perforator Flap Versus Radial Forearm Flap in Unilateral Tongue Reconstruction: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.. Head & neck. 2026. DOI: 10.1002/hed.70478.
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.