A Study Comparing Free-Flap Reconstruction via the Retroauricular Approach and the Traditional Transcervical Approach for XXXX : A Matched Case-Control Study.

@entity1 @entity135 @entity6093
BACKGROUND: Free-flap reconstruction via a retroauricular approach (RRA) after robot-assisted neck dissection (RAND) could have cosmetic benefits. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of free-flap reconstruction via a RRA and via a transcervical approach in @entity135 . METHODS: For this matched case-control study, 50 @entity1 with @entity135 requiring free-flap reconstruction were divided into two groups: those reconstructed via a RRA group and those reconstructed via a transcervical approach ( @entity6093 group). The total operation time for free-flap reconstruction, the flap survival rate, the length of the hospital stay, the complications, and the scar satisfaction scores were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The RRA group comprised 25 @entity1 , and the @entity6093 group had 25 @entity1 . The mean operation time for reconstruction was 288    77 min in the RRA group and 250    98 min in the @entity6093 group (p = 0.132). Flap failure occurred for two @entity1 in the RRA group (8 %) and for one @entity1 in the @entity6093 group (4 %) (p = 1.000). The mean hospital stay was 21    18 days in the RRA group and 23    14 days in the @entity6093 group (p = 0.669). The complications were comparable between the two groups. However, the overall scar satisfaction was significantly higher in the RRA group (p = 0.000). CONCLUSIONS: For @entity1 with @entity135 , RRA has better cosmetic outcomes than @entity6093 . The RRA approach could be used for select @entity1 who undergo RAND and prefer to avoid a visible anterior neck scar.
