目的 :评估应用前臂皮瓣(radial forearm free flap,RFFF)、股前外侧穿支皮瓣(anterolateral thigh perforator flap,ALT)、颏下岛状皮瓣(submental island flap,SIF)修复舌癌患者手术相关因素及术后生活质量,明确舌癌切除的最佳修复方法。方法:2004年10月—2014年10月期间,应用RFFF、ALT、SIF修复90例舌癌患者术后缺损,随访观察半年,分析患者手术时间、住院天数、皮瓣面积及3种皮瓣修复对患者术后生存质量的影响。患者在手术后复诊时自行完成华盛顿大学生存质量问卷量表第4版(University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire version 4,UW-QOL v4)填写。采用SPSS17.0软件包对数据进行统计学处理。结果 :3组手术时间差异显著(P<0.05)。ALT组与SIF组住院天数差异显著(P<0.05),其余2组无显著差异。3组皮瓣面积差异显著(P<0.05)。外貌方面,ALT组与RFFF组有显著差异(P<0.05),其余2组无显著差异。行动方面,ALT组与SIF组、ALT组与RFFF组有显著差异(P<0.05),SIF组与RFFF组无显著差异。3组在咀嚼、吞咽、语言、疼痛等10方面及总QOL得分无显著差异。结论:3种皮瓣修复舌癌术后缺损总生存质量无显著差异,均为舌癌术后缺损修复的理想皮瓣。皮瓣选择需根据组织缺损的类型及大小、手术条件与患者的自身情况等综合考虑。 PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency forearm free flap (RFFF), anterolateral thigh perforator flap (ALT) and submental island flap (SIF) in the repair of tongue cancer patients Related factors and postoperative quality of life, clear the best repair of tongue cancer. METHODS: From October 2004 to October 2014, 90 cases of tongue cancer patients were treated with RFFF, ALT and SIF. The patients were followed up for six months. The operation time, hospitalization days, flap area and three kinds of flap repair were analyzed Impact on postoperative quality of life of patients. Patients completed the University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire version 4 (UW-QOL v4) by completing their own post-operative referral. SPSS17.0 software package for statistical analysis of the data. Results: There was significant difference in operation time between the three groups (P <0.05). There was a significant difference in days of hospitalization between ALT group and SIF group (P <0.05), but there was no significant difference between the other two groups. There was significant difference in the flap area between the three groups (P <0.05). Appearance, ALT group and RFFF group were significantly different (P <0.05), the remaining two groups no significant difference. In terms of action, ALT group and SIF group, ALT group and RFFF group were significantly different (P <0.05), SIF group and RFFF group no significant difference. There were no significant differences in total QOL scores between the three groups in terms of chewing, swallowing, language, pain, etc. CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in the total quality of life between the three kinds of flaps for repair of tongue cancer. All of them are the ideal flaps for the repair of tongue cancer after operation. Flap selection should be based on the type and size of tissue defects, surgical conditions and the patient’s own situation, and so comprehensively considered.