Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 4, 2025
Porcine As a Training Module for Head and Neck Microvascular Reconstruction
Published on: September 29, 2018
Anteromedial thigh septocutaneous perforator flap as a first choice for head and neck reconstruction: A clinical
Chunyue Ma1, Weijin Gao2, Ahmed Abdelrehem3
1Department of Oral Maxillofacial-Head Neck Oncology, Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai, China.
Background:
Anterolateral thigh perforator flaps (ALTPFs) have long been considered workhorse flaps for head and neck reconstructions. However, in some instances, anteromedial thigh septocutaneous perforator flaps (AMTPFs) are easier to harvest than ALTPFs. This study aimed to determine when and how the AMTPF should be considered the first choice as a reconstructive tool.
Methods:
A retrospective cohort study was performed in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery-Head & Neck Oncology, Shanghai Ninth People Hospital, from January 2014 to December 2018. Both the perforator-pedicle relationships and postoperative functional outcomes were compared.
Results:
A total of 168 patients were included in this study, among whom 49 underwent AMTPF reconstructions. The AMTPF perforators in this study were mostly septocutaneous (n = 38, 77.5%). Notably, the AMTPF perforators mainly originated from the medial branch of the descending branches of the lateral circumflex femoral arteries (n = 44, 89.8%), while for the other 5 patients, the perforators were found to originate from the superficial femoral arteries. Additionally, the average pedicle length of the AMTPFs was 8.7 cm (range: 6.0 to 13.0 cm), which was comparable to that of the ALTPFs (8.9 cm) (p = 0.442). The postoperative complication rate and functional outcomes were comparable between the two groups. The algorithm and harvesting approaches are presented.
Conclusions:
The role of AMTPF should not be downplayed. After careful preoperative evaluation, we believe that AMTPF should not be considered a second choice in patients with sizable septocutaneous perforators.
