| Literature DB >> 24040181 |
Fa-yu Liu1, Rui-wu Li, Jawad Safdar, Zhen-ning Li, Nan Guo, Zhong-fei Xu, Shu-fen Ge, Jun-lin Li, Shao-hui Huang, Xue-xin Tan, Chang-fu Sun.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The usage of submental flap is a good method for head and neck reconstruction, but it has some risk also, such as anatomical variations and surgical errors. In this article, we present a modified incision design for the submental flap.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24040181 PMCID: PMC3770673 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074110
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Individual designs of the submental flap, platysma myocutaneous flap and infrahyoid myocutaneous flap.
Note the overlap of the incision outline in the middle and upper neck (red line).
Figure 2The modified submental flap design.
Figure 3An illustration of the surgical technique.
Figure 4The flap is raised.
Figure 5The defect is repaired using a submental flap.
Twenty-seven consecutive patients who underwent tumor resection and reconstruction with a submental flap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M | 69 | Tongue, parapharyngeal space | SCC | T4N0M0 | 6×5 | Cd | 10 | 1 | 15 | - | No (LTM) | SND |
| 2 | F | 68 | Tongue, Floor of mouth | SCC | T1N0M0 | 6×4 | - | 5.5 | No | No | - | Yes | SND |
| 3 | M | 53 | Tongue | SCC | T2N0M0 | 8×5 | - | 8 | - | - | - | Yes | SND(B) |
| 4 | M | 51 | Tongue | AC | T4N0M0 | 6×4 | - | 7.5 | 6 | - | - | No (LTM) | SND |
| 5 | F | 37 | Tongue | SCC | T4N0M0 | 6×4.5 | - | 5.66 | 5 | 18 | - | Yes | MRND |
| 6 | F | 56 | Tongue | SCC | T3N0M0 | 5×5 | Hy | 5 | - | - | - | No (LTM) | MRND |
| 7 | F | 40 | Tongue | SCC | T2N1M0 | 5.5×6 | - | 7.5 | No | No | - | Yes | SND |
| 8 | F | 71 | Tongue | SCC | T1N0M0 | 4×3 | Cd | 3.83 | No | No | Necrosis of distal tip | No (LTM) | SND |
| 9 | F | 58 | Tongue | SCC | T4N0M0 | 6×4 | Dm | 10 | - | - | - | Yes | SND |
| 10 | M | 76 | Tongue | SCC | T4N0M0 | 7×5 | Cd | 7.25 | - | - | - | Yes | SND |
| 11 | M | 86 | Sublingual gland | ACC | T3N0M0 | 7×4 | - | 2.16 | No | 53 (natural death) | - | Yes | - |
| 12 | M | 66 | Sublingual gland | ACC | T2N0M0 | 6×3.5 | - | 5.25 | No | No | - | Yes | SND |
| 13 | M | 46 | Sublingual gland | ACC | T3N0M0 | 6×4 | - | 4 | No | No | - | Yes | SND |
| 14 | M | 40 | Parotid | ACC | T4N0M0 | 5×9 | Hy | 4.5 | - | - | - | Yes | MRND |
| 15 | M | 61 | parapharyngeal space | SCC | T1N0M0 | 4×6 | Hy+Cd | 7.5 | No | No | - | No (LTM) | SND |
| 16 | M | 55 | parapharyngeal space | SCC | T2N0M0 | 8×6 | - | 10.08 | - | - | - | Yes | SND |
| 17 | M | 77 | Lip | SCC | T3N1M0 | 6.5×5 | Hy+Cd | 4.83 | - | - | - | Yes | MRND(B) |
| 18 | M | 74 | Lip | SCC | T3N1M0 | 2.5×4 | - | 7.66 | No | No | - | Yes | SND(B) |
| 19 | F | 80 | Lip | SCC | T2N0M0 | 3×3 | Hy | 3.58 | - | - | - | Yes | - |
| 20 | M | 51 | Floor of mouth, Tongue | SCC | T4N1M0 | 7×5 | Dm | 3.66 | 3 | 30 | - | No (LTM) | SND |
| 21 | M | 70 | Floor of mouth | SCC | T2N0M0 | 4×6 | Hy+Dm | 4.45 | - | - | - | Yes | SND |
| 22 | M | 75 | Floor of mouth | SCC | T4N0M0 | 6.5×4.5 | Cd | 5 | 15 | 55 | Necrosis of distal | Yes | MRND |
| 23 | M | 61 | Face | SCC | T4N0M0 | 6×4 | - | 5 | - | Yes | - | ||
| 24 | M | 43 | Buccal mucosa | SCC | T3N0M0 | 6×5 | - | 4.75 | No | No | - | Yes | SND |
| 25 | M | 63 | Buccal mucosa | SCC | T2N0M0 | 5×11 | - | 4 | - | - | - | Yes | SND |
| 26 | F | 66 | Alveolar ridge | SCC | T4N0M0 | 4×3 | Hy | 3.5 | - | - | - | Yes | SND |
| 27 | F | 76 | Alveolar ridge | SCC | T2N0M0 | 4×6 | Hy | 5 | 28 | 30 | - | Yes | SND |
ACC: adenoid cystic carcinoma. SCC: squamous cell carcinoma. AC: adenocarcinoma. Hy: hypertension. Dm: diabetes mellitus. Cd: cardiac disease. SND: selective neck dissection. MRND: modified radical neck dissection. LTM: limitation of tongue movement. B: bilateral neck
Comparison of operation-related factors between the submental flap and radial forearm free flap groups.
| Submental flap | Radial forearm free flap | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average age (y) | 61.818 | 55.727 | 0.071 (Mann-Whitney U=324) |
| Comorbid disease rate | 51.9% (14/27) | 27.3% (9/33) | 0.065 (χ2=3.795) |
| Average operation time (h, with unilateral neck dissection) | 5.904 | 8.332 | 0.001 |
| Complication rate | 7.4% (2/27) | 6.1% (2/33) | 1.000 (χ2=0.043) |
P<0.05
Figure 6The survival and recurrence graphs of the submental flap and radial forearm free flap group.
(1: submental flap group, 2: radial forearm free flap group. Kaplan-Meier method).
Comparison of survival time and recurrence time between the submental flap and radial forearm free flap groups (Kaplan-Meier test).
| Submental flap | Free flap | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall survival time (m) | 57.627±8.569 | 49.774±6.004 | 0.439 |
| Disease-specific survival time (m) | 60.757±9.503 | 52.134±6.200 | 0.478 |
| Disease-free survival time (m) | 49.427±5.529 | 44.563±5.787 | 0.463 |
| Recurrence time (m) | 56.983±10.119 | 47.158±6.072 | 0.703 |
Figure 7The choice of the reconstruction method in a patient with lymph node metastasis.
Figure 8The facial vein drains into the external jugular vein.