Second osteocutaneous fibular free flaps for head and neck defects

Bobak A. Ghaheri, Jason H. Kim, Mark K. Wax

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations


Objective: To analyze the morbidity of a second fibular free tissue transfer when necessary in rare instances when the initial fibular flap fails. Case design: Retrospective analysis of a case series. Methods: A database of patients who underwent resection of head and neck malignancies with resultant free flap reconstruction was analyzed retrospectively. All patients undergoing fibular free flaps were studied, and those needing a second fibular osteocutaneous flap were identified. The morbidity from the second flap was evaluated by a standard questionnaire. Results: Seven patients underwent a second fibular osteocutaneous flaps for reconstruction; data were available from six. The indications for the second flap were perioperative flap loss (5 patients), osteoradionecrosis (1), and recurrent tumor (1). Follow-up began at 3 months; mean follow-up was 44 (range 9-67) months. The morbidity of harvesting a second fibular flap was similar to that of a unilateral harvest. Four of six patients rated their overall morbidity as low; one patient indicated an intermediate morbidity, and one patient rated their morbidity from the procedure as major. The only donor site morbidities were episodes of mild cellulitis that resolved with outpatient antibiotics. Conclusion: Harvest of a second fibular osteocutaneous is a reasonable option for reconstruction when a second flap becomes needed. The morbidities are comparable with those encountered with a unilateral fibular flap harvest.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)983-986
Number of pages4
Issue number6
StatePublished - Jun 2005


  • Donor site morbidity
  • Head and neck defect
  • Osteocutaneous fibular free flap

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology


Dive into the research topics of 'Second osteocutaneous fibular free flaps for head and neck defects'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this