Table 3: Radial forearm free flaps.
Study name |
Number of cases |
Types of flap |
Results |
Santamaria, et al. [21] |
28 case |
All sensate RFF With different recipient nerve |
Light-touch, Pain sensation, and Hot and cold perception were clearly decreased in the reconstructed side. Only two-point discrimination was comparable with collateral side |
Kuriakose, et al. [24] |
17 case |
All sensate RFF
|
2-point discrimination (moving and static) as well as pressure sensitivity were reported to be greater in innervated than on the site opposite to donor site. Values were almost equal to those of normal tongue. |
Loewen, et al. [25] |
16 case |
8 sensate RFF 8 control |
There were significant differences with healthy control in light touch, temperature sensation, and two-point discrimination (20-50% correct response of reconstructed flaps compared to 60-90% correct response from control) |
L.Zhu, et al. [9] |
40 cases |
20 sensate RFF 20 control |
Light mechanical stimuli (MDT) were observed in 20 patients of 20 patients. A thermal painful stimuli (CPT, HPT) within degree limits of (0 °C, 52 °C) was not detected in 0 of 20 patients. |
Boyd, et al. [14] |
28 flaps |
8 sensate RFF 10 non-sensate RFF 10 historical controls (PM flaps) |
Percentage of presence of sensation modality (sensate versus non-sensate), Sharp/dull discrimination was 75% versus 10%. Hot and cold perception: 100% (both) versus 50% (hot) and 40% (cold). Two-point discrimination: 14.25 g/mm2 versus 27 g/mm2. |
Biglioli, et al. [26] |
16 flaps |
Seven sensate RFF Nine non-sensate RFF
|
Perception of tactile stimuli was slightly better in the sensate group (average 83%) compared to non-sensate group (71%). Sharp/ dull discrimination and cold perceptions were higher (average of 85%) compared with non-sensate (average 50%) |
Katou, et al. [7] |
13 flaps |
Four sensate RFF Nine non-sensate RFF |
(Sensate vs. nonsensate) sharp/dull discrimination (4/4 versus 4/9 patients). Hot/cold discrimination presented in (4/4 versus 2/9). |