Donor-Site Morbidity of Free Muscle and Perforator Flaps: Comparison of the Gracilis Muscle Flap and the Anterolateral Thigh Flap

Abstract

Background Both the gracilis muscle flap and the anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap have been described as successful reconstructive options for defect coverage after trauma or tumor resection. In general, free perforator flaps are considered to generate less donor-site morbidity than muscle flaps. Here, we put this hypothesis to the test.

Methods In this study, 193 patients who had undergone free flap reconstruction with either free gracilis muscle flaps (n = 131) or ALT flaps (n = 62) were included. Subjective patient satisfaction with the aesthetic and functional outcome of the donor sites was assessed using a self-report questionnaire as well as the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS).

Results Comparing the donor-site morbidity of free ALT and gracilis flaps, the LEFS revealed no significant differences in functional impairment (p = 0.6447) of the lower extremity. The donor-site scar was significantly longer after ALT flap harvest (mean: 21.16 cm) than after gracilis muscle flap harvest (mean: 14.17 cm; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, donor-site numbness was significantly greater in the ALT group than in the gracilis group (p = 0.0068).

Conclusion No significant differences in functional impairment of the lower extremity were reported after gracilis muscle and ALT flap harvest. Regarding scar length and level of numbness of the donor site, the gracilis muscle flap was shown to be superior to the ALT flap.

Keywords

anterolateral thigh flap - gracilis flap - donor-site morbidity

• References

• 1 Song YG, Chen GZ, Song YL. The free thigh flap: a new free flap concept based on the septocutaneous artery. Br J Plast Surg 1984; 37 (02) 149-159
• 2 Riva FM, Tan NC, Liu KW, Hsieh CH, Jeng SF. Anteromedial thigh perforator free flap: report of 41 consecutive flaps and donor-site morbidity evaluation. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013; 66 (10) 1405-1414
• 3 Koshima I, Nanba Y, Tsutsui T, Takahashi Y. New anterolateral thigh perforator flap with a short pedicle for reconstruction of defects in the upper extremities. Ann Plast Surg 2003; 51 (01) 30-36
• 4 Hanasono MM, Skoracki RJ, Yu P. A prospective study of donor-site morbidity after anterolateral thigh fasciocutaneous and myocutaneous free flap harvest in 220 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (01) 209-214
• 5 Kuo YR, Yeh MC, Shih HS. , et al. Versatility of the anterolateral thigh flap with vascularized fascia lata for reconstruction of complex soft-tissue defects: clinical experience and functional assessment of the donor site. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124 (01) 171-180
• 6 Caulfield WH, Curtsinger L, Powell G, Pederson WC. Donor leg morbidity after pedicled rectus femoris muscle flap transfer for abdominal wall and pelvic reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 32 (04) 377-382
• 7 Lee JC, St-Hilaire H, Christy MR, Wise MW, Rodriguez ED. Anterolateral thigh flap for trauma reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2010; 64 (02) 164-168
• 8 Coulet B, Boch C, Boretto J, Lazerges C, Chammas M. Free gracilis muscle transfer to restore elbow flexion in brachial plexus injuries. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2011; 97 (08) 785-792
• 9 Contedini F, Negosanti L, Pinto V. , et al. Tensor fascia latae perforator flap: an alternative reconstructive choice for anterolateral thigh flap when no sizable skin perforator is available. Indian J Plast Surg 2013; 46 (01) 55-58
• 10 Holle J, Worseg A, Kuzbari R, Würinger E, Alt A. The extended gracilis muscle flap for reconstruction of the lower leg. Br J Plast Surg 1995; 48 (06) 353-359
• 11 Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FR, Botman YA. , et al. The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113 (07) 1960-1965 , discussion 1966–1967
• 12 Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, Riddle DL. ; North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. Phys Ther 1999; 79 (04) 371-383
• 13 Townley WA, Royston EC, Karmiris N, Crick A, Dunn RL. Critical assessment of the anterolateral thigh flap donor site. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2011; 64 (12) 1621-1626
• 14 Collins J, Ayeni O, Thoma A. A systematic review of anterolateral thigh flap donor site morbidity. Can J Plast Surg 2012; 20 (01) 17-23
• 15 Chen YC, Scaglioni MF, Carrillo Jimenez LE, Yang JC, Huang EY, Lin TS. Suprafascial anterolateral thigh flap harvest: a better way to minimize donor-site morbidity in head and neck reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (03) 689-698
• 16 Markey JD, Seth R, Wang SJ, Ryan WR, El-Sayed IH, Knott PD. Anterolateral thigh adipofascial flap: a new option for scalp reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2016; 32 (02) 160-163
• 17 Weichman K, Allen Jr RJ, Thanik V, Matros E, Mehrara BJ. Adipofascial anterolateral thigh free flaps for oncologic hand and foot reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2015; 31 (09) 684-687
• 18 Agostini T, Agostini V. Adipofascial anterolateral thigh free flap for hemifacial atrophy. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2009; 29 (02) 103-107
• 19 Agostini T, Russo GL, Zhang YX, Spinelli G, Lazzeri D. Adipofascial anterolateral thigh flap safety: applications and complications. Arch Plast Surg 2013; 40 (02) 91-96
• 20 Agostini V, Dini M, Mori A, Franchi A, Agostini T. Adipofascial anterolateral thigh free flap for tongue repair. Br J Plast Surg 2003; 56 (06) 614-618
• 21 Papadopoulos O, Konofaos P, Georgiou P. , et al. Gracilis myocutaneous flap: evaluation of potential risk factors and long-term donor-site morbidity. Microsurgery 2011; 31 (06) 448-453
• 22 Deutinger M, Kuzbari R, Paternostro T, Todoroff B, Becker MH. [Functional and esthetic assessment of donor site defects following transfer of the gracilis muscle]. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 1995; 27 (02) 90-92
• 23 Garcia RM, Gosain AK, Zenn MR, Marcus JR. Early postoperative complications following gracilis free muscle transfer for facial reanimation: a systematic review and pooled data analysis. J Reconstr Microsurg 2015; 31 (08) 558-564
• 24 Franco MJ, Nicoson MC, Parikh RP, Tung TH. Lower extremity reconstruction with free gracilis flaps. J Reconstr Microsurg 2017; 33 (03) 218-224
• 25 Hallock GG. Minimally invasive harvest of the gracilis muscle. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 104 (03) 801-805
• 26 Deutinger M, Kuzbari R, Paternostro-Sluga T. , et al. Donor-site morbidity of the gracilis flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995; 95 (07) 1240-1244
• 27 Fischer S, Klinkenberg M, Behr B. , et al. Comparison of donor-site morbidity and satisfaction between anterolateral thigh and parascapular free flaps in the same patient. J Reconstr Microsurg 2013; 29 (08) 537-544
• 28 Lakhiani C, DeFazio MV, Han K, Falola R, Evans K. Donor-site morbidity following free tissue harvest from the thigh: a systematic review and pooled analysis of complications. J Reconstr Microsurg 2016; 32 (05) 342-357
• 29 Klinkenberg M, Fischer S, Kremer T, Hernekamp F, Lehnhardt M, Daigeler A. Comparison of anterolateral thigh, lateral arm, and parascapular free flaps with regard to donor-site morbidity and aesthetic and functional outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (02) 293-302