Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Radial forearm flap, first described in the early eighties in China, is a well-known and handy flap to cover soft tissue defects of the distal upper limb. It has, though, some inconveniences, such as the sacrifice of the radial artery and non-neglectable esthetic sequelae in the donor site. In the following years, a similar flap based on the perforators of the radial artery has been described as achieving similar results, allowing to spare a main vessel. The authors reviewed retrospectively the patients that underwent surgery with one of those two flaps in their center to compare outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients operated between January 2016 and January 2022 have been reviewed. Ten had a classic radial artery flap, and ten had a radial artery perforator flap. Twelve weeks after surgery, Vancouver Scar Scale was used to assess the results at the donor site and over the flap. Reintervention and failure rate within one year and patient satisfaction -using a visual analog scale ranging from 0 to ten-at 12 months were also assessed. RESULTS: All classic radial artery flap group patients had "successful" surgery, and none needed secondary surgery. On the other side, three patients required a second surgery in the perforator flap group, and nine out of ten ended up with "successful" flaps. Mean Vancouver Scar Scale results regarding the flap are comparable, whereas those at the donor site are significantly better in the patients with the perforator flap. Patients' satisfaction results are similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: The radial artery perforator flap is an important flap to be held in mind by all surgeons approaching reconstruction of the elbow, the forearm, and the hand, and should be preferred, when possible, to the classic radial forearm flap.