PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 14, 2026Journal of Craniofacial Surgery0 citations

Quantitative Assessment of Closure Forces in Paramedian Forehead Flap Donor Sites

View Full Paper
EAEmily AleksaSKSami KhouryCSCorey A. Smith

Key Points

  • This research focuses on quantifying closure forces in paramedian forehead flap donor sites and evaluating techniques to reduce these forces.
  • Analyzed closure forces in fifteen fresh cadaveric specimens randomized into three groups based on flap width.
  • Used a robotic system to measure forces needed for primary closure, hemicoronal advancement, and bicoronal advancement.
  • Employing Friedman test and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for statistical analysis of force comparisons.
  • Primary closure forces averaged 9.1N, 29.0N, and 47.3N for flap widths of 1.5, 3, and 4.5 cm, respectively.
  • Suture failure occurred in 80% of cases with 4.5 cm defects prior to achieving closure.
  • Hemicoronal advancement reduced closure forces by 42% to 64%, while bicoronal advancement reduced forces by 77% to 86%.

Abstract

Background: Paramedian forehead flap (PMFF) reconstruction remains the gold standard for complex nasal defects, but donor site closure under tension risks dehiscence and poor scarring. This study quantifies closure forces for PMFF donor sites and evaluates force reduction achieved with coronal advancement flaps. Methods: Fifteen fresh cadaveric specimens were randomized to 3 groups based on the flap width (1.5, 3, or 4.5 cm). Using a 6-degree-of-freedom robotic system, forces required for primary closure, hemicoronal advancement, and bicoronal advancement were measured. Force comparisons across closure techniques were analyzed using the Friedman test with post hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Results: Primary closure forces averaged 9.1±0.4N, 29.0±4.2N, and 47.3±6.8N for 1.5, 3, and 4.5 cm defects, respectively. Suture failure occurred in 80% of 4.5 cm defects before achieving primary closure. Hemicoronal advancement reduced forces by 42% to 64%, and bicoronal advancement reduced forces by 77% to 86% compared with primary closure. Friedman analysis confirmed significant differences in closure forces across techniques (χ²=10.0, P =0.0067), while Wilcoxon pairwise comparisons showed consistent trends toward lower forces with advancement flaps, though not statistically significant due to small sample size. Conclusions: Coronal advancement flaps provide a substantial biomechanical advantage for PMFF donor site closure. Statistical analysis supports observed trends of tension reduction, reinforcing the clinical benefit of hemicoronal and bicoronal flaps for moderate to large defects.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Aleksa et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6966e70113bf7a6f02bff1cdhttps://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000012434
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper