4.3 Article

Impact of age on microvascular free flap perfusion in head and neck reconstruction

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2022.05.011

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to investigate the impact of age on flap perfusion. The results showed that there was no difference in microvascular free flap perfusion between older and younger patients. Age does not affect flap perfusion in radial free forearm flaps, anterolateral thigh flaps, and fibular free flaps.
Objective. Aging is associated with structural and functional cardiovascular changes that may affect microvascular free flap perfusion, which is a prerequisite for flap viability and flap success. This study is aimed to investigate the impact of age on flap perfusion. Study Design. Intraoperative and postoperative flap perfusion of 348 patients who underwent successful reconstruction with a radial free forearm flap (RFFF), anterolateral thigh flap (ALTF), or fibular free flap (FFF) was retrospectively analyzed and compared between older (>70 years) and younger patients (<= 70 years) using the Mann-Whitney test and linear regression models. Results. Intraoperative flap blood flow and hemoglobin concentration (55.5 arbitrary units [AU] vs 69.3 AU, P =.004; 42.5 AU vs 47.3 AU, P =.016, respectively) were reduced in ALTFs in older patients compared with younger patients. These 2 differences did not persist in multivariable testing (P =.097 and P =.323, respectively). No other differences were observed between the older and younger patients in terms of intraoperative and postoperative flap blood flow, hemoglobin concentration, and hemoglobin oxygen saturation in RFFFs, ALTFs, and FFFs (all P >.05). Conclusions. Age has no impact on microvascular free flap perfusion in RFFFs, ALTFs, and FFFs. This could contribute to the observed equal success of free flaps in older patients. (Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2023;135:42- 50)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available