“…The mean follow-up (41 mo) is close to that of patients who have undergone soft tissue restoration using structural fat grafting (43 mo). They did not report flap atrophy and noticed that, in patients who gained 3 Groin flap 11,12,14,16,17,20,22,24,25,29,31,32 12 Deep inferior epigastric perforators flap 11 1 Scapular and parascapular 17,[23][24][25]27,[30][31][32]36,37,47 11 Latissimus dorsi flap 21,24,25,31,39,41 6 Omental flap 13,15,20,23,38 5 Dorsalis pedis flap 16 1 Circumflex iliac flap 16,42 2 Gracilis flap 23 1 Radial forearm flap 25,26,30 3 Serratus flap 28,44 2 Lateral arm flap 28 1 Anterolateral thigh flap [33][34][35]40,41,43,45,46 8 The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery • Volume 25, Number 3, May 2014 Fat Grafting Versus Local/Free Flaps weight, the flap volume increased but the free tissue transfer did not alter the natural history of the disease process. First, the structural fat grafting technique has been introduced to the clinical practice more recently with respect to the microsurgical correction of soft tissue volume deficiency, which in part explains the larger number of patients treated with free tissue transfer.…”