Is there an ideal way to close the donor site of radial forearm free flaps?

Radial forearm free flaps (RFFF) are the “workhorse” of reconstructive head and neck surgery, but have considerable morbidity at the donor site. The aim of this study was to review current publications about the incidence and type of morbidity and the different techniques used for closure of the site. We screened the MEDLINE database to find relevant papers using the terms “RFFF head and neck” and “RFFF donor site”. s were filtered, and the full texts studied carefully. We found 1056 publications during the period 1982-2017 of which 389 were studied in full, and 39 studies were finally included in the review. We found four main methods of closure of the donor site: full-thickness skin grafts (FTSG); split-thickness skin grafts (STSG); modified techniques for raising the flap and closure of the wound by local flaps; and others (such as allografts, expanders, and vacuum bandages). For STSG and FTSG the preparation of the donor site seems to be a relevant factor. Special attention should be paid to the coverage of the flexor tendons. FTSG give better aesthetic results than STSG. Closure by local flaps may achieve primary closure of the donor site without a third surgical site, but the techniques are limited by the amount of tissue required at the site of the defect. The most common side effects are disorders of wound healing such as exposed tendons. To avoid exposure of the tendons, flexor tendons should be covered with muscle bellies when STSG are used. It is still not clear whether many other reported side effects (such as impairment of sensitivity) are induced by raising the flap or closing the donor site. There is an argument for closure of individual donor sites independently, but there is no one method of closure for all donor sites, because each has its specific disadvantages and complications.