Radial and Ulnar Forearm Free Flaps: A Critical Comparison of Donor-Site Morbidity and Its Impact on Quality of Life.

BACKGROUND

A poor evidence basis exists regarding directly comparing objective and subjective donor-site morbidity associated with the forearm flap. The authors evaluated the postoperative donor-site complications and quality-of-life outcomes between the radial forearm free flap (RFFF) and the ulnar forearm free flap (UFFF).

METHODS

All patients undergoing RFFF or UFFF harvest were included. Grip strength, pinch strength, wrist range of movement, and testing of skin sensitivity were assessed with the appropriate scales at different time intervals. In addition, appearance and quality of life were assessed using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale and the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand instruments.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were enrolled (RFFF, n = 40; and UFFF, n = 40). A short-term reduction in grip strength, fine motor skills (tip pinch, key pinch, palmar pinch), and range of motion was observed for the RFFF group and improved over time. None of the patients in either group experienced functional disturbance in grip strength, wrist motion, fine motor skills, or sensation to light touch at 1 year. Nine patients experienced partial skin graft loss (RFFF, n = 6; UFFF, n = 3). There was a significantly higher incidence of temporary numbness in the RFFF group ( P = 0.040). Persistent numbness occurred in 3 cases in the RFFF group. Cold intolerance was significantly lower in the UFFF group (2.5%) than in RFFF group (22.5%). Moreover, the mean Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale and Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores were reduced at 12 months compared with 6 months, significantly superior for UFFF.

CONCLUSIONS

Objective function limitations are reversible short-term effects after forearm flap and do not affect daily routines in the long term. In addition, UFFF appears to be preferred over RFFF for subjective outcomes, which emphasizes that UFFF should be considered as an alternative to RFFF for reconstructing soft-tissue defects.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.