Study name

Number of cases

Types of flap

Results

Santamaria, et al. [21]

28 case

All sensate RFF

With different recipient nerve

Light-touch, Pain sensation, and Hot and cold perception were clearly decreased in the reconstructed side. Only two-point discrimination was comparable with collateral side

Kuriakose, et al. [24]

17 case

All sensate RFF

2-point discrimination (moving and static) as well as pressure sensitivity were reported to be greater in innervated than on the site opposite to donor site. Values were almost equal to those of normal tongue.

Loewen, et al. [25]

16 case

8 sensate RFF

8 control

There were significant differences with healthy control in light touch, temperature sensation, and two-point discrimination (20-50% correct response of reconstructed flaps compared to 60-90% correct response from control)

L.Zhu, et al. [9]

40 cases

20 sensate RFF

20 control

Light mechanical stimuli (MDT) were observed in 20 patients of 20 patients. A thermal painful stimuli (CPT, HPT) within degree limits of (0 °C, 52 °C) was not detected in 0 of 20 patients.

Boyd, et al. [14]

28 flaps

8 sensate RFF

10 non-sensate RFF

10 historical controls (PM flaps)

Percentage of presence of sensation modality (sensate versus non-sensate), Sharp/dull discrimination was 75% versus 10%. Hot and cold perception: 100% (both) versus 50% (hot) and 40% (cold). Two-point discrimination: 14.25 g/mm² versus 27 g/mm².

Biglioli, et al. [26]

16 flaps

Seven sensate RFF

Nine non-sensate RFF

Perception of tactile stimuli was slightly better in the sensate group (average 83%) compared to non-sensate group (71%). Sharp/ dull discrimination and cold perceptions were higher (average of 85%) compared with non-sensate (average 50%)

Katou, et al.

[7]

13 flaps

Four sensate RFF

Nine non-sensate RFF

(Sensate vs. nonsensate) sharp/dull discrimination (4/4 versus 4/9 patients). Hot/cold discrimination presented in (4/4 versus 2/9).