Evidence mapPaperPMID 42583433Full record

ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026

Second or subsequent microvascular free flaps in head and neck reconstructive surgery: a narrative review.

Ziad Albash, Wajih Kashkash, Anton Sergeevich Sharapo, Zaderenko Igor Alexandrovich, Hassan Alsayed Hachem

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ziad AlbashDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Tishreen University, Latakia, Syria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2799-970X
Wajih KashkashDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Al-Andalus University, Tartus, Syria.
Anton Sergeevich SharapoDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia.
Zaderenko Igor AlexandrovichN.N Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow, Russia.
Hassan Alsayed HachemDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Microvascular free tissue transfer is the cornerstone of complex head and neck reconstruction, with primary flap success rates exceeding 95% in high-volume centers. However, a growing number of patients require second or subsequent free flaps due to recurrent malignancy, osteoradionecrosis (ORN), primary flap failure, or functional and aesthetic refinements. These re-operative scenarios present a uniquely hostile surgical environment shaped by prior surgery, radiation, and vessel depletion, demanding a fundamentally different reconstructive strategy. Objectives: This narrative review aims to synthesize current evidence on the indications, technical challenges, preoperative planning considerations, surgical strategies, and outcomes associated with second or subsequent microvascular free flaps in head and neck reconstruction. Methods: A targeted literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library using key terms such as "second free flap," "salvage microsurgery," and "head and neck reconstruction." Emphasis was placed on clinical studies, case series, and expert reviews from the past three decades. Given the heterogeneity of the available data, a narrative - rather than systematic - approach was adopted to provide a clinically contextualized synthesis of the evidence. Key findings: Based predominantly on retrospective single-institution case series and systematic reviews of such data, reported flap survival rates for secondary reconstructions range from 90 to 95%, with further marginal declines for third or subsequent flaps. Common indications include locoregional cancer recurrence, ORN, and salvage after primary flap loss. The anterolateral thigh, scapular/parascapular, and fibula flaps are frequently employed due to their long pedicles and versatility. Critical technical considerations include advanced vascular mapping (typically via CT angiography), use of alternative recipient vessels (e.g., transverse cervical, internal mammary), and strategic deployment of vein grafts. Complication rates - particularly for pharyngocutaneous fistula, thrombosis, and wound dehiscence - are higher than in primary reconstruction, and outcomes are influenced by factors such as smoking status, nutritional health, and prior treatment burden. Conclusion: Second and subsequent free flaps are feasible and effective in experienced hands but require a paradigm shift in planning and execution. Success depends on meticulous multidisciplinary assessment, image-guided vascular mapping, technical adaptability, and a patient-centered approach that balances reconstructive ambition with realistic functional goals.

Indexed as

head and neck reconstructionmicrovascular surgerysalvage reconstructionsecond free flapvascular mapping

Identifiers

PMID42583433
PMCPMC13461008

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.