Background: The keystone perforator island flap provides a versatile form of reconstruction. Perceived benefits include better donor-recipient color match, less contour defect, and fewer complications. To date, there has been no high-quality evidence comparing keystone flaps to split-thickness skin grafts (SSG) from both a qualitative and quantitative point of view.
Methods: The Objective and Patient Reported Assessments of Skin grafts versus Keystone flap cohort study compares keystone flaps with SSGs for the reconstruction of skin cancer defects. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected using the EuroQol 5 dimension scale and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) questionnaires. Objective assessments of skin quality were assessed with the Courage and Khazaka system. Cost analysis was also performed.
Results: Thirty-eight patients were studied: 20 keystone flaps and 18 SSGs. The keystone group had higher EuroQol 5 dimension scale scores (keystone median = 1.0; SSG median = 0.832; P = 0.641) indicating better general quality of life and lower POSAS scores indicating better disease/condition specific quality of life (keystone mean = 27.7; SSG mean = 35.7; P = 0.323). Observer POSAS scores were significantly lower in the keystone group compared with the SSG group (keystone mean = 10.889; SSG mean = 17.313; P < 0.001). Preservation of sensation was significantly better in keystone flaps (P = 0.006). There was an average £158/$207 (15%) saving when performing a keystone flap.
Conclusion: This pilot study demonstrates a number of possible benefits of keystone flaps over SSGs. The results demonstrate the need for further research comparing these reconstructive options. We propose a prospective, controlled study using the methods developed in this pilot study.