Table_1_Comparison Between Modified Lateral Arm Free Flap and Traditional Lateral Arm Free Flap for the Reconstruction of Oral and Maxillofacial Soft Tissue Defects.xlsx

ObjectiveThe traditional lateral arm free flap (tLAFF) has the disadvantages of short vascular pedicle, small vascular diameter, and non-perforator flap. We used a new method to prepare modified LAFF (mLAFF) and evaluate its application value in the repair of oral and maxillofacial soft tissue defects.
MethodsThe anatomical features of the flap were recorded and compared between the tLAFF group and the mLAFF group. All the flaps in the modified group were perforator flaps. Statistical analysis was performed on the data using ANOVA on SPSS 22.0 statistical software package.
ResultsForty-five mLAFFs were prepared as eccentric design rotation repair perforated flap, or multi-lobed or chimeric perforator flaps. Compared with the tLAFF, the vascular pedicle length of the mLAFF was increased, and the outer diameter of the anastomosis was thickened. The damage to the donor site was less. The difference was statistically significant.
ConclusionThe mLAFF can effectively lengthen the vascular pedicle length and increase the anastomosis diameter. Perforator LAFFs in the repair of oral and maxillofacial defects have good application value.