Indications and Outcomes of Single-Pedicle vs 2-Pedicle Thigh Free Flaps in Head and Neck Reconstruction.

Importance: Flap choice and design are crucial to the success of free flap reconstruction of the head and neck. These are dependent on donor and recipient site characteristics.

Objective: To demonstrate indications and outcomes of a single-pedicle anterolateral thigh flap (standard ALT flap) vs a thigh free flap with 2 pedicles in head and neck reconstruction.

Design, Setting, And Participants: A retrospective case series of consecutive patients treated in a tertiary academic care center between October 2011 and June 2017 by a single reconstructive microsurgeon was carried out. Eighty-one patients underwent reconstruction of a cutaneous and/or mucosal defect of the head and neck. Patients with a composite mandibular defect who received both a fibular flap and a thigh flap were excluded. Those with less than 6 months of follow-up were excluded.

Main Outcomes And Measures: Patient characteristics and clinical variables, including age, sex, primary diagnosis/indication for reconstruction, type of flap, dimensions of flap, and number of perforators in the flap, were collected. Optimal cutoff values to quantitate the differences in length and width between the standard ALT and 2-pedicle thigh flaps were determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and the Youden Index. The types of flap were compared to determine any difference in flap complications including flap loss, venous congestion, and poor wound healing.

Results: Of the 81 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.2 [15.9] years; 62 [76.5%] men), 57 and 18 patients were reconstructed with a standard ALT flap and a thigh flap with 2 pedicles, respectively. Six patients underwent multiple simultaneous thigh (MST) flaps. Defect size (width ≥12 cm, standard ALT: 95% CI, 7.6-9.7; thigh flap with 2 pedicles: 95% CI, 7.0-17.4; P = .02; length ≥17 cm, standard ALT: 95% CI, 11.9-15.2; thigh flap with 2 pedicles: 95% CI, 13.6-30.0; P = .001), the presence of divergent mucosal defects, and through-and-through oral cavity/pharyngeal defects were associated with the use of 2 pedicles. Within groups of thigh flaps with 2 pedicles and MST flaps, there were no flap complications (ie, partial loss, venous congestion, or wound healing issues from poor perfusion).

Conclusions And Relevance: Harvesting a thigh flap with 2 pedicles has the potential to reduce flap complications and should be considered for divergent and wide or long defects. Width and length measurements respectively of 12 cm and 17 cm are reasonable numbers to initially consider when deciding whether to include a second pedicle.

Level Of Evidence: 3.