Comparing donor site morbidity in osteocutaneous radial forearm versus fibula free flap for mandibular reconstruction.

[PURPOSE] The osteocutaneous radial forearm free flap has gained popularity as a less morbid option for oromandibular reconstruction compared to the fibular free flap. However, there is a paucity of data regarding direct outcome comparison between these techniques.

[METHODS] Retrospective chart review of 94 patients who underwent maxillomandibular reconstruction intervened from July 2012-October 2020 at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. All other bony free flaps were excluded. Endpoints retrieved encompassed demographics, surgical outcomes, perioperative data, and donor site morbidity. Continuous data points were analyzed using independent sample t-Tests. Qualitative data was analyzed using Chi-Square tests to determine significance. Ordinal variables were tested using the Mann-Whitney U test.

[RESULTS] The cohort was equally male and female, with a mean age of 62.6 years. There were 21 and 73 patients in the osteocutaneous radial forearm free flap and fibular free flap cohorts, respectively. Excluding age, the groups were otherwise comparable, including tobacco use, and ASA classification. Bony defect (OC-RFFF = 7.9 cm, FFF = 9.4 cm, p = 0.021) and skin paddle (OC-RFFF = 54.6 cm, FFF = 72.21 cm, p = 0.045) size were larger in the fibular free flap group. However, no significant difference was found between cohorts with respect to skin graft. There was no statistically significant difference between cohorts regarding the rate of donor site infection, tourniquet time, ischemia time, total operative time, blood transfusion, or length of hospital stay.

[CONCLUSIONS] No significant difference in perioperative donor site morbidity was found between patients undergoing fibular forearm free flap and osteocutaneous radial forearm flap for maxillomandibular reconstruction. Osteocutaneous radial forearm flap performance was associated with significantly older age, which may represent a selection bias.