Division versus de-epithelialization of fibula osteocutaneous flap for composite oromandibular defects: A propensity score-matched analysis.

Abstract

<h4>Background</h4>Different fibula osteocutaneous free flap (FOCFF) configurations have been described with a double-skin paddle (DSP) to address composite through-and-through oromandibular defects: division of the skin paddle using different perforators (div-FOCFF) or a de-epithelialized DSP FOCFF (deEpi-FOCFF). This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes using these two methods (deEpi-FOCFF/div-FOCFF).<h4>Methods</h4>Patients who underwent segmental mandibulectomy and reconstruction with a DSP FOCFF between 2011 and 2014 were included. We compared postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing reconstruction with deEpi-FOCFF versus div-FOCFF implementing propensity score matching.<h4>Results</h4>Of the 245 patients, 156 cases (78 pairs) were 1:1 matched. Demographic and oncologic variables were comparable between groups. The average age was 57.68 years. A higher number of perforators per flap was evident in the div-FOCFF group (p < 0.001). The deEpi-FOCFF group exhibited a higher total flap loss rate when compared to the div-FOCFF group (15 % versus 5 % p = 0.03). On multivariate analysis, number of perforators per flap (OR 0.31, p = 0.02), using the deEpi-FOCFF (OR 3.88, p = 0.03), and an increased reconstructive time (OR 1.01, p = 0.01) independently affected the likelihood of free flap failure.<h4>Conclusion</h4>If the number and location of perforators are optimal, div-FOCFF improves reconstructive outcomes for composite oromandibular defects versus the deEpi-FOCFF.