During the past 20 years, the neural anatomy of many flaps has been investigated, although no extensive studies have been reported yet on the anterolateral thigh flap. The goal of this study was to describe the sensory territories of the nerves supplying the anterolateral thigh flap with dissections on fresh cadavers and with local anesthetic injections in living subjects. The sensate anterolateral thigh flap is typically described as innervated by the lateral cutaneous femoral nerve. Two other well-known nerves, the superior perforator nerve and the median perforator nerve, which enter the flap at its medial border, might have a role in anterolateral thigh flap innervation. Twenty-nine anterolateral thigh flaps were elevated in 15 cadavers, and the lateral cutaneous femoral nerve, the superior perforator nerve, and median perforator nerve were dissected. In the injection study, the lateral cutaneous femoral nerve, superior perforator nerve, and median perforator nerve in 16 thighs of eight subjects were sequentially blocked. The resulting sensory deficit from each injection was mapped on the skin and superimposed on the marked anterolateral thigh flap territory. The study shows that the sensate anterolateral thigh flap is basically innervated by all three nerves. The lateral cutaneous femoral nerve was present in 29 of 29 thighs, whereas the superior perforator nerve was present in 25 of 29 and the median perforator nerve in 24 of 29 thighs. Furthermore, in the proximal half of the flap, the lateral cutaneous femoral nerve lies deep, whereas the superior perforator nerve and median perforator nerve lie more superficially. Whereas the lateral cutaneous femoral nerve innervates the entire flap, the superior perforator nerve innervates 25 percent of the flap and the median perforator nerve innervates 60 percent of the flap. Clinically, a small anterolateral thigh flap (7 x 5 cm) can be raised sparing the lateral cutaneous femoral nerve and using only the selective areas innervated by the superior perforator and median perforator nerves. Alternatively, a large anterolateral thigh flap can be raised with this multiple innervation. This can be helpful if one wants to harvest the flap under local anesthesia. Sensate bilobed flaps can be harvested when dual innervated flaps are required.

Background: Subcondylar fractures represent 25 to 35 percent of all mandibular fractures, yet the treatment paradigm has remained controversial. Closed treatment relies on the plasticity of the condyle head during recovery, whereas open treatment is challenging and risks facial nerve injury. Perioperative, functional, and patient-reported outcomes were measured to compare methods of open versus closed treatment of subcondylar fractures. Methods: Selected displaced subcondylar fracture cases with open (open reduction and internal fixation of subcondylar fracture with maxillomandibular fixation) versus closed (maxillomandibular fixation) treatment were compared (n = 60). Demographics, perioperative data, complications, persistent symptoms, chin deviation, malocclusion, change in mouth opening, functional scores, and FACE-Q patient satisfaction were recorded. Results: Open versus closed groups had similar demographics and perioperative data, except the open group had longer operating room time (76.39 minutes versus 56.15 minutes). In long-term follow-up, open-treated patients had fewer symptoms (9 percent versus 67 percent), less chin deviation (0 percent versus 40 percent), a less restricted mouth opening (3mm versus 5mm), and better functional scores (1.92 versus 0.861). Transient facial nerve weakness was seen in 6 percent of open cases. Conclusion: For selected subcondylar fracture patients, open treatment with endoscopic assistance, nerve monitoring, and specialized plates provides superior long-term results compared to closed treatment when considering symptoms and functional parameters. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.