Sensory recovery of non-innervated free flaps and nasolabial island flaps used for tongue reconstruction of oncological defects

Abstract

Objectives

The aims of this study were to assess sensory recovery and impact on life quality after tongue reconstruction of oncological defects using different flap types.

Materials and methods

Thirty-two patients who underwent tongue reconstruction for oncological defects 9.3 months after surgery with non-innervated radial forearm free flaps (RFFFs) (N=16), non-innervated anterolateral thigh free flaps (ALTFFs) (N=8) and nasolabial island flaps (NLIFs) (N=8), and 20 age- and gender-matched healthy controls participated in the study. The modalities assessed were cold detection threshold (CDT), warm detection threshold (WDT), cold pain threshold (CPT), heat pain threshold (HPT), mechanical detection threshold (MDT), mechanical pain threshold (MPT) and the Chinese version of Oral Health Impact Profile-49 (OHIP-49).

Results

ALTFFs was significantly more sensitive than RFFFs (p=0.005) and NLIFs (p=0.014) for WDT, and showed a better sensory recovery than RFFFs for HPT (p=0.011). ALTFFs and NLIFs showed significantly better sensory recovery than RFFFs for MDT (p<0.005). NLIFs showed the best sensory recovery for MPT, followed by ALTFFs and lastly RFFFs (p=0.004). NLIFs also showed the least impact on quality of life measures related to psychological discomfort compared to RFFFs and ALTFFs (p<0.019). All modalities of sensory recovery in RFFFs did not depend on gender and postoperative radiotherapy (p>0.05).

Conclusion

Different flaps for tongue reconstruction of oncological defects appear to have different patterns of sensory recovery and impact on quality of life measures. A longer follow-up period and larger number of participants will be needed in future studies.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

http://ift.tt/2ouKiNT