Comparison of outcomes between single- and multiple-perforator-based free perforator flaps: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

[BACKGROUND] Perforator-based free perforator flaps have become an important tool for the reconstruction of tissue defects. The effect of the number of perforators on the outcomes of perforator flaps has been widely debated. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of single- and multiple-perforator-based free perforator flaps in free-flap reconstruction.

[METHODS] We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM), Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov between January 2000 and June 2021 to identify studies that reported data on the outcomes of free perforator flaps. Two authors individually extracted data and performed quality assessment. Outcomes, including partial flap loss, total loss, fat necrosis, arterial insufficiency, venous insufficiency, hemorrhage and hematoma, wound dehiscence at recipient sites and donor site complications, were evaluated.

[RESULTS] Thirty-two studies with 2498 flaps were included in our analysis. No significant difference was found in the rates of partial loss and arterial insufficiency of flaps, hemorrhage and hematoma, wound dehiscence at recipient sites and donor site complications. However, the multiple-perforator group showed significantly lower rates of total loss (relative risk [RR] = 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78-1.79, p = .754), fat necrosis (RR = 1.79, 95% [CI]: 1.36-2.36, p = .000) and venous insufficiency (RR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.07-2.79, p = .026) than the single-perforator group.

[CONCLUSION] The rates of total loss, fat necrosis and venous insufficiency in the multiple-perforator group were lower than those in the single-perforator group. Hence, we recommend that multiple perforators be included in the free perforator flap when appropriate, to yield better clinical outcomes in reconstruction.