The study, authored by Sam El Abbadi of Klinikum Kassel in Germany and Rushil R. Dang of Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, introduces what the authors call a perforator-based sentinel skin island. Instead of modifying the main skin paddle or attaching extra monitoring devices, the technique harvests a small additional island of skin, at least two centimeters by two centimeters, supplied by a perforating blood vessel branching off the flap’s main pedicle in the proximal forearm. Once the flap is transferred and sewn into place, this sentinel island is positioned along the cervical incision line in the neck, where clinicians can inspect it directly every day.

The logic is deceptively simple. Clinical examination remains the gold standard for assessing free flaps, because color, capillary refill, temperature and turgor tell an experienced observer more, faster, than any machine. Devices such as acoustic Doppler probes, implantable Dopplers, near-infrared spectroscopy, hyperspectral imaging and tissue oximetry all have roles, but none replaces a trained eye on visible skin. When a flap is buried, as in pharyngo-esophageal reconstruction after throat cancer, that eye has nothing to see. The sentinel island restores visibility without disturbing the reconstruction itself.

The surgical workflow begins before the first incision. The authors recommend marking the standard radial artery flap design and then using an ultrasound probe to trace the pedicle between the brachioradialis and flexor carpi radialis muscles in a distal-to-proximal direction. Typically, in the middle third of the forearm, a septocutaneous perforator can be identified and marked. The monitor island is then drawn around that perforator, with roughly four to five centimeters of separation from the proximal border of the traditional distal skin paddle. That spacing matters: it gives the monitor island enough reach to sit in the neck without kinking or twisting the main pedicle. While a perforator can, in principle, be found intraoperatively without imaging, the authors found that preoperative ultrasound makes the harvest faster and more reliable.

During the operation, the sequence is deliberately reversed compared with conventional practice. The surgeons first open the septum between the two forearm muscles, identify the pedicle along the proximal aspect of the traditional skin paddle, and trace it until the perforator comes into view. Because these perforators can be small in caliber and branch into several delicate terminal vessels feeding the skin, the authors advise against skeletonizing them, which risks injury or spasm. Instead, they recommend incising the fascia on both sides and carrying a cuff of fascia along the perforator’s course, protecting the fragile vessel within it. Only after the proximal pedicle and perforator are secured are the markings for the sentinel island finalized and incised.

The rest of the harvest proceeds in familiar fashion. The traditional distal skin paddle is raised in a suprafascial plane, with careful protection of the cephalic vein and the superficial radial nerve on the radial side. The distal radial artery and its venae comitantes are ligated and divided, the tourniquet is released, and the viability of both the main paddle and the monitor paddle is confirmed clinically and with indocyanine green fluorescence angiography before the pedicle is divided. After the flap is tubed to reconstruct the pharyngo-esophageal defect and the microvascular anastomoses are completed, the sentinel island is sutured into the cervical incision line, deliberately away from the stoma site, and the neck is closed in the standard manner. At two-week follow-up, the monitor island appeared healthy in the reported case.

The technique is not the first attempt to solve the buried-flap problem, and the authors situate their method carefully within a crowded literature. Furuta and colleagues described a small distal external monitoring paddle created by de-epithelializing part of the main skin paddle, an approach that works but consumes reconstructable skin and limits the monitor’s reach and flexibility. Pellini and colleagues based a monitor island on venous flow through the cephalic vein, but that requires using the cephalic vein for the venous anastomosis and makes islanding a superficial paddle difficult. Cho and colleagues described a septocutaneous technique but reported difficulty finding proximal perforators and cases of perforator torsion that produced false-positive alarms. A team from Chang Gung Memorial Hospital later demonstrated the reliability of harvesting two skin paddles from a single radial forearm donor site, particularly in patients undergoing trismus release.

Against that backdrop, the new approach claims several distinct advantages. The monitor island shares the flap’s main pedicle, so it does not depend on a separate vascular system such as the cephalic vein, which the authors argue reduces the risk of false-positive findings. The design of the traditional distal skin paddle is left completely untouched, preserving the full surface area available for reconstruction. Because no de-epithelialization is needed, the technique avoids the impaired flap inset and fistula risk that can accompany folded or partially de-epithelialized paddles. And the additional dissection required to raise the monitor paddle is minimal and time-efficient. The authors also report applying the same monitoring strategy beyond pharyngo-esophageal defects, including reconstructions of the tonsillar region where the flap is barely visible and oral cavity reconstructions in patients with severe trismus, in whom examining the main paddle postoperatively would be extremely difficult.

The authors are candid about the limitations. The series is small, and the study lacks objective monitoring endpoints beyond free flap survival itself. As previous work has shown, a monitor paddle can misreport the state of the flap, and the delicate perforators remain vulnerable to twisting, which could still generate false signals. Those caveats matter in a field where a single missed flap failure can be catastrophic and where false alarms can trigger unnecessary reoperations. Broader experience and comparative data will be needed before the technique can be considered validated rather than promising.

Even so, the contribution fits a broader trend in reconstructive microsurgery: rather than adding more technology to the postoperative ward, surgeons are redesigning the flap itself so that the oldest monitoring tool of all, direct clinical inspection, remains available even when the reconstruction is hidden from view. For patients facing some of the most demanding reconstructions in head and neck oncology, a two-centimeter island of skin tucked into the incision line could mean the difference between catching a vascular crisis in time and discovering it too late. The technique, the authors conclude, may serve as a practical adjunct that simplifies monitoring of the radial artery forearm free flap across a variety of challenging clinical scenarios.

Subject of Research: Perforator-based sentinel skin islands for monitoring buried radial artery forearm free flaps in head and neck reconstruction

Article Title: Perforator based sentinel skin Island for monitoring of buried radial artery forearm free flaps in head and neck reconstruction: a technical note and case series

Article References: El Abbadi, S., & Dang, R. R. (2026). Perforator based sentinel skin Island for monitoring of buried radial artery forearm free flaps in head and neck reconstruction: a technical note and case series. BMC Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44452-026-00019-7

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s44452-026-00019-7

Keywords: free flap monitoring, radial artery forearm free flap, sentinel skin island, perforator, head and neck reconstruction, pharyngo-esophageal reconstruction, microsurgery, plastic surgery, buried flap, ultrasound-guided surgery, oral cancer, reconstructive surgery