LOCAL FLAPS VS. SKIN GRAFTS IN HEAD AND NECK ONCOLOGIC SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56238/levv16n54-109Keywords:
Local Flaps, Skin Grafts, Head and Neck Surgery, Oncological Reconstruction, RecurrenceAbstract
Introduction: Reconstruction of surgical defects after resection of head and neck tumors is crucial for restoring function and aesthetics. The main coverage options involve the use of local flaps (LF) and skin grafts (SG). Objective: To compare the clinical and aesthetic outcomes and recurrence rate between the use of Local Flaps and Skin Grafts for reconstruction of oncological defects in the head and neck region. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted in electronic databases (Medline/PubMed, LILACS, and Scopus), using MeSH terms and keywords related to "Oncological Surgery," "Head and Neck," "Local Flaps," and "Skin Grafts." Comparative studies (randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies) published in the last 15 years, evaluating complication rates, recurrence, and aesthetic/functional outcomes, were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: Twelve studies were included in the review. The results indicate that local flaps are associated with a lower rate of local recurrence (Table 2) and better aesthetic and functional outcomes, although they may present a slightly longer operative time and greater morbidity at the donor site (if applicable). Skin grafts demonstrate greater technical simplicity and shorter hospital stay in some contexts, but with inferior aesthetic results and a higher risk of contracture. Conclusion: Local flaps represent the preferred technique for head and neck reconstructions where the complexity of the defect and the functional impact are greater, offering a more robust and potentially safer oncological outcome. The choice of technique should be individualized based on the size and depth of the defect and the patient's comorbidities.
Downloads
References
1. Halim, A. S., Khoo, T. L., & Mat Saad, A. Z. (2010). Biologic and synthetic skin substitutes: An overview. Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery, 43(Suppl), S23–S28. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-0358.70712
2. Iordache, S., Sârbu, I., Simionescu, O., & Enescu, D. M. (2023). The role of skin substitutes in the therapeutical management of burn patients. Journal of Medicine and Life, 16(2), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.25122/jml-2022-0322
3. Schiestl, C., Stiefel, D., Meuli, M., & Meuli-Simmen, C. (2023). Use of Integra®️ dermal regeneration template bilayer in reconstructive surgery: A review. Surgeries, 6(3), 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/surgeries6030045
4. Dent, B. L., Gasper, W. J., & Brown, K. R. (2018). Scrotal reconstruction with Integra following necrotizing fasciitis. Case Reports in Urology, 2018, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6385219
5. Kondej, D., Struzik, M., & Kubiak, T. (2024). Bioengineering skin substitutes for wound management: Current trends and future directions. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 25(7), 3702. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25073702
6. Salloum, R., Khuri, S., & Abou Ghazal, T. (2023). Comparing the application of various engineered dermal substitutes in clinical practice: A systematic review. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 22(8), 2390–2402. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.15517
7. Scalise, A., Calamita, R., Tartaglione, C., et al. (2020). Reconstruction of full-thickness soft tissue defects with Integra®️ dermal regeneration template: A multicentric prospective study on 111 patients. International Wound Journal, 17(4), 999–1009. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13348
8. Putri, I. L., Nugraha, J., Rahardjo, D., & Susilo, A. (2024). Comparison of combination skin substitutes and skin grafts: A meta-analysis. SAGE Open Medical Case Reports, 12, 2050313X241236902. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050313X241236902
9. Iordache, M., Sârbu, I., Simionescu, O., & Enescu, D. M. (2025). The role of skin substitutes in the therapeutical management of burn patients. Medicina, 61(6), 947. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina6100947
10. Cottone, G., Fanzio, P. M., Uva, M., Albanese, R., Cottone, M., & Turchi, C. (2021). Comparison of efficacy among three dermal substitutes in skin defects. Plastic and Aesthetic Research, 8, 12. https://doi.org/10.20517/2347-9264.2021.07
11. Gibson, A. L. F., Koppel, H., Borthwick, L. A., & Philpott, M. (2023). Living skin substitute tissue—Is it a replacement for the autograft? Surgeries, 4(3), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/surgeries4030031
12. Kondej, D., Struzik, M., & Kubiak, T. (2024). Bioengineering skin substitutes for wound management: Current trends and future directions. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 25(7), 3702. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25073702
13. Shah, J. P., Patel, S. G., & Singh, B. (2020). Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology (5th ed.). Elsevier.
14. Weber, A. L., & Doweck, I. (2018). Surgical Pathology of the Head and Neck. CRC Press.
15. Hagen, F. K., & Liau, K. (2015). Reconstructive options for head and neck oncological defects: A review of local and regional flaps. JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, 141(10), 957-964. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2015.1950
16. Chang, Y. T., et al. (2016). Comparison of the use of local flaps and skin grafts in small-to-medium sized head and neck cancer defects. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 69(8), 1083-1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2016.03.003
17. D'Cruz, A. K., et al. (2021). Consensus recommendations for the management of head and neck cancer: The Asian Society of Head and Neck Oncology (ASHNO) guidelines. Oral Oncology, 120, 105436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2021.105436
18. Sharma, P., Gupta, S., & Singh, R. (2023). Local Flaps versus Split-Thickness Skin Grafts for Head and Neck Defects: A Comparative Study of Outcomes. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 75(4), 3130–3136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-022-03310-9
19. Lee, C. H., et al. (2021). Comparison of local flap versus skin graft reconstruction in midfacial oncologic defects: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery, 23(2), 118-124. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2020.1045
20. Silva, V. M., et al. (2020). Evaluation of local recurrence and functional outcomes following head and neck skin cancer excision: Flaps vs. grafts. European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 46(1), 180-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.08.019
21. Chen, M. C., et al. (2019). The role of local flaps in enhancing aesthetic and functional outcomes after periorbital and nasal reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 143(3), 779-786. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005391
22. Ghorab, M. Y., et al. (2018). Comparison between full-thickness skin grafts and local flaps in auricular reconstruction after skin cancer excision. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 29(8), 2139-2143. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000004928
23. Kim, S. Y., et al. (2017). Local flap versus skin graft for reconstruction of defects after excision of oral and pharyngeal cancers: Long-term follow-up study of recurrence. The Laryngoscope, 127(5), 1092-1098. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26442
24. Torres, J. I., et al. (2022). Functional and aesthetic outcomes of local flaps for facial defects: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 42(6), NP328-NP339. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjac005
