Objectives: Free flaps are often criticized as being medically risky for the patient, expensive, and too time-consuming when compared with the traditional rotational flap repair. Perhaps the costs do not outweigh the benefits. The study analyzes many aspects of resource utilization and patient outcome to determine whether these criticisms hold true.
Study design: Retrospective patient review.
Methods: Sixty-five patient charts were reviewed. The following data were abstracted: flap type, tumor location and stage, preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologists score, preoperative irradiation, postoperative medical complications, flap outcome, length of hospital stay, date of first intake by mouth, and date of decannulation. The data were analyzed for free flaps and rotational flaps. Then data were analyzed again for free and rotational flaps performed for only patients who underwent a composite resection, to further standardize the results.
Results: For all defect types, free flap operative time was statistically greater (9 h 35 min for free flaps vs. 4 h 58 min for rotational flaps). Regarding hospital charges, only patients who had a free flap after composite resection differed in amount charged when free versus rotational flaps were compared (53,585 dollars for free flaps vs. 32,984 dollars for rotational flaps). Length of intensive care unit stay differed between patients having composite resection of the two flap types (0.1 d after rotational flap vs. 1.4 d after free flap).
Conclusions: The differences between the two reconstruction methods are only a few. We do not think that longer operative time, longer length of intensive care unit stay, and increased hospital charges are significant enough to deny a patient a superior repair. We also think that as surgeons' experience increases, these differences may one day no longer hold true.