Literature DB >> 23208973

Nasal reconstruction with the two stages vs three stages forehead flap. A three centres experience over ten years.

D Ribuffo1, F Serratore, E Cigna, V Sorvillo, M Guerra, S Bucher, N Scuderi.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In nasal reconstruction all anatomic layers as cover, lining, and support, have to be replaced to restore proper aesthetics. Forehead skin has been acknowledged as the best donor site to resurface the nose. Traditionally forehead flap reconstruction is performed in two stages, but Millard described an intermediate third stage between flap transfer and pedicle division. This study compared the two methods.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study enrolled 31 patients undergoing total or subtotal nose reconstruction between January 2001 and January 2012. 20 patients underwent to the two-step technique (2S Group), and 11 the three-step technique (3S Group). Thickness of the flap was measured in three different areas. A plastic surgeon not involved in the study completed an evaluation questionnaire to assess aesthetic satisfaction (VAS = 1-10).
RESULTS: The total number of procedures performed (including revisions) ranged from 3 to 6. The average number of procedures performed in group 2S patients was 4 (range: 3-6) in the group 3S was 3.46 (range: 3-5). VAS mean values were studied with t Student test and were found to be significant. DISCUSSION: The timing of thinning of the flap and detachment of the pedicle varies among Authors. There are generally two trends: defatting of the flap before the pedicle transection, performed usually 3 weeks from flap harvesting and defatting a few months after disconnection of the pedicle. We think this technique is suited for defects including underlying structures and particularly for all those defects located in the distal part of the nose (tip and nostrils).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23208973

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci        ISSN: 1128-3602            Impact factor:   3.507


  6 in total

Review 1.  Effectiveness of Nasolabial Flap Versus Paramedian Forehead Flap for Nasal Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sourabh Shankar Chakraborty; Akhil Dhanesh Goel; Ranjit Kumar Sahu; Manojit Midya; Sudeshna Acharya; Neha Shakrawal
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2022-09-14       Impact factor: 2.708

2.  Outcome Study after Nasal Alar/Peri-alar Subunit Reconstruction: Comparing Paramedian Forehead Flap to Nasolabial Flap.

Authors:  Rafaella Genova; Preston A Gardner; Lauren N Oliver; Kongkrit Chaiyasate
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2019-05-16

3.  Application of FACE-Q and NOSE in Nasal Reconstruction with Paramedian Frontal Flap after Skin Cancer Resection.

Authors:  Vitor Penteado Figueiredo Pagotto; Rafael Mamoru Carneiro Tutihashi; Renan Diego Americo Ribeiro; Giulia Godoy Takahashi; Cristina Pires Camargo; Fábio de Freitas Busnardo; Rolf Gemperli
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2021-04-08

4.  Rare syringoid eccrine carcinoma of the upper lip and nasal base treated with resection and subsequent innovative reconstruction using an Abbé flap, turbinate flaps and three-stage forehead flap: a case report.

Authors:  Zdeněk Dvořák; Richard Pink; Petr Heinz; Jaroslav Michálek; Petr Krsička
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-09-08       Impact factor: 3.253

5.  Can we add auricular composite graft to our rhinoplasty armamentarium?

Authors:  Ali Manafi; Amir Eslami Shahr Babaki; Golnoush Mehrabani; Abtine Shahlaee; Amir Manafi
Journal:  World J Plast Surg       Date:  2013-01

6.  Nonsurgical management of a large necrotic nasal tip wound using a viable cryopreserved placental membrane.

Authors:  Eric L Johnson; Alla Danilkovitch
Journal:  Clin Case Rep       Date:  2018-09-28
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.