Long-Term Donor-Site Morbidity After Microsurgical Fibular Graft: Is There a Difference Between the Medial Approach and the Lateral Approach?

PurposeMicrovascular fibula harvesting for osseous reconstruction is a valuable aid in maxillofacial surgery. We assessed whether the lateral and the medial harvesting techniques differed with respect to long-term donor-site morbidity.Materials and MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who had undergone free fibula harvesting at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, between 1987 and 2008. The primary predictor variable was the surgical approach. The primary and secondary outcome variables were the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score and the result of the Short Form 36 Health Survey on quality of life, respectively. Other variables were age, gender, harvest length, operation time, and specific impairments and surgical complications. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS, version 14.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL); P < .05 was considered significant.ResultsThe 42 patients had a mean age of 55.5 years. The mean follow-up period was 81 months (range, 7-174 months). In the medial group, the mean American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score was 94.4 points and the total number of impairments was 34, as compared with 85.6 points and 46 impairments, respectively, in the lateral group. This tendency for less morbidity with the medial approach was only found in female patients. The Short Form 36 scores were not statistically different between the 2 surgical approaches.ConclusionsThe medial approach led to less functional impairment of the foot and ankle. Our results support the medial approach as a viable alternative, especially in women, but only in cases when a skin paddle is not necessary.