A Retrospective Comparative Functional and Aesthetic Outcome Study of Muscle versus Cutaneous Free Flaps for Distal Upper Extremity Reconstruction

Abstract

Abstract Background Function and cosmesis are crucial in upper extremity reconstruction. Yet, there persists a lack of outcome evaluations, particularly regarding differences between free flap types. Methods In a single-center retrospective analysis, outcomes were compared between patients with cutaneous or muscle free flaps for distal upper extremity reconstruction between 2008 and 2018. The Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand -Score, Michigan-Hand (MHQ), and Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) Questionnaires were assessed, motor function was quantified, and self-reported measures of cosmesis were compared, including the Vancouver Scar-Scale (VSS), MHQ aesthetics-subscale (MAS), and Moscona's cosmetic validation-score (CVS). Results One-hundred forty-one cases were identified, with a shift toward cutaneous flaps over the study period. Muscle flaps were used for larger defects (251 vs. 142 cm2, p = 0.008). Losses, thromboses, and donor-site complications were equally distributed. Partial necroses were more frequent in muscle flaps (11 vs. 1%, p = 0.015). Seventy patients with 53 cutaneous versus 17 muscle flaps were reexamined. There was no difference in the timing of flap coverage (after 16 vs. 15 days, p = 0.79), number of preceding (2 vs. 1.7, p = 0.95), or subsequent operations (19/53 vs. 5/17, p = 0.77). Patients with cutaneous flaps showed higher grip strength (25 vs. 17 kg, p = 0.046) and reported better hand function (MHQ: 58 vs. 47, p = 0.044) and general health (SF-36: 70 vs. 61, p = 0.040), as well as more favorable appearance (MAS: 71 vs. 57, p = 0.044, CVS: 77 vs. 72, p = 0.048), and scar burden (VSS: 0 vs. 3, p < 0.001). Conclusion Cutaneous flaps yielded better motor function, self-perceived cosmesis, patient satisfaction, and quality of life in our cohort of distal upper extremity reconstructions.