Table 4: Comparison between different types of flaps.

Study name


of flaps

Type of flaps


Shindo, et al. [29]

18 cases

9 non-sensate fasciocutaneous RF flaps

9 non-sensate osteocutaneous fibula Flaps

No return of sensibility in the 2 cases of total glosse. However, Sensibility was reported in all five patients undergoing partial lesions.

Close, et al. [22]

12 cases


8 non-sensate fasciocut-

aneous (4 RF, 4 ALT).

4 non-sensate pedicled

musculocutaneous (1 LD, 3PM)

10 out of 12 patients restored sensibility ability after 6 months. Of 8 FCFF, 6 restored Sharp/dull discrimination, 8 restored Touch sensation, and 5 restored Two-point discrimination. Of 4 MCF, 2 restored Sharp/dull sensation, 2 restored Touch sensation, and only one restored Two-point discrimination.

Sabesan, et al. [13]

39 cases

23 non-sensate FC RFF

6 non-sensate gastro-omental free flaps

10 non-sensate jejunal

Comparison between three types of flap reported that RF flaps have the most superior measures of all modalities of sensation, and jejunal almost have the lowest one.

Kimata, et al. [30]

27 cases

Eight sensate ALT flaps,

Six non-sensate ALT flaps,

Five sensate RA flaps

10 non-sensate RA flaps

Sensate versus non-sensate flaps: Sensibility of light touch (87.5% vs. 30%). Hot/cold discrimination (87.5% vs. 0%). two-point discrimination (7/8 patients vs. 1/6 patients). innervated ALT flaps were able to detect pressures as low as (6.62g vs. 184.7g).

L.ZHU, et al. [8]

52 cases

16 non-sensate RFFF

8 non-sensate ALTF

8 Nasolabial Island Flap

20 control

 RFFFs and NLIFs were significantly less sensitive than ALTFFs for WDT. For HPT, ALTFs were better than RFFs. For MDT, RFFFs showed significantly lower sensory recovery than ALTFFs and NLIFs. NLIFs were the best regarded to MPT, followed by ALTFs, while RFFs were the last.

Cicconetti, et al. [10]

14 cases

9 non-sensate RFFF

5 non-sensate jejunal F

Recovery of sensation was better in patients with free radial forearm flaps (6(9/ than in patients with jejunal free flaps (5/0). This difference was statistically significant (p50.005)