Does the Anastomosis Recipient Vessel Have an Influence on Free Flap Perfusion in Microvascular Head and Neck Reconstruction-A Retrospective Analysis of 338 Cases with Comparison of Flap Perfusion between Different Arterial and Venous Recipient Vessels in Radial Free Forearm Flaps, Anterolateral Thigh Flaps, and Fibula Free Flaps.

Flap perfusion is a prerequisite for microvascular free flap survival and a parameter routinely used for flap monitoring. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the anastomosis recipient vessel on flap perfusion. Flap perfusion was retrospectively analyzed in 338 patients who underwent head and neck reconstruction with microvascular free flaps between 2011 and 2020. The Oxygen-to-see tissue oxygen analysis system measurements for intraoperative and postoperative flap blood flow, hemoglobin concentration, and hemoglobin oxygen saturation at 8 and 2 mm tissue depths were compared between arterial anastomosis recipient vessels (external carotid artery [ECA], facial artery [FAA], lingual artery [LIA], and superior thyroid artery [STA]) and venous anastomosis recipient vessels (internal jugular vein [IJV], combination of IJV and IJV branches, IJV branches, and external jugular vein). The postoperative hemoglobin concentration at 2 mm tissue depth differed significantly between arterial anastomosis recipient vessels (ECA, 41.0 arbitrary units [AU]; FAA, 59.0 AU; LIA, 51.5 AU; STA, 59.0 AU; = 0.029). This difference did not persist in the multivariable testing ( = 0.342). No other differences in flap blood flow, hemoglobin concentration, or hemoglobin oxygen saturation were observed between the arterial and venous anastomosis recipient vessels ( > 0.05 for all). The arterial and venous recipient vessels used for anastomosis did not influence microvascular free flap perfusion. This underlines the capability of the studied recipient vessels to adequately perfuse free flaps, may explain the observed indifferent flap survival rates between commonly used anastomosis recipient vessels, and implies that the recipient vessel is not a confounding variable for flap monitoring with the Oxygen-to-see tissue oxygen analysis system. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm the findings.