BACKGROUND: In nasal reconstruction, the paramedian forehead flap is traditionally performed in 2 stages. To minimize the risk of flap necrosis, Millard described a 3-stage technique in a series of 5 cases in 1974. In this technique, an intermediate step of flap thinning is performed after flap transfer and before pedicle division. In this article, we compare the 2- and 3-stage techniques of paramedian forehead flaps for nasal reconstruction to determine the type and prevalence of complications related to each procedure. METHODS: Here, we present a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of paramedian forehead flaps for nasal reconstruction performed during a period of 6 years. We included all patients with 2- (n=87) and 3-stage (n=100) paramedian forehead flaps who had consistent and complete electronic patient records and followed them up for at least 6 months after pedicle division. We performed a regression analysis to adjust for the unequal distribution of complex cases. RESULTS: Demographic factors and the causes for the nasal defects were similar in both groups. Although the nasal reconstructions were significantly more complex in the 3-stage group, the rate of partial forehead flap necrosis was similar in both groups (2-stage, 3.4%; 3-stage, 5%; P=0.601). A regression analysis showed that the relative risk of partial flap necrosis in complex cases did not differ significantly between groups (relative risk, 0.80; P=0.705). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, our study is the largest series published to date and the first one to compare the prevalence of forehead flap necrosis in the 2- versus the 3-stage technique for paramedian forehead flaps. We found no evidence that the use of a 3-stage forehead flap lowers the prevalence of necrosis. Until larger multicenter studies or meta-analyses can be conducted, smaller yet well-conducted studies such as the present one provide critical data and represent an important contribution to the field. Future research should investigate whether the 3-stage technique produces better aesthetic results than the 2-stage technique.
BACKGROUND: In nasal reconstruction, the paramedian forehead flap is traditionally performed in 2 stages. To minimize the risk of flap necrosis, Millard described a 3-stage technique in a series of 5 cases in 1974. In this technique, an intermediate step of flap thinning is performed after flap transfer and before pedicle division. In this article, we compare the 2- and 3-stage techniques of paramedian forehead flaps for nasal reconstruction to determine the type and prevalence of complications related to each procedure. METHODS: Here, we present a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of paramedian forehead flaps for nasal reconstruction performed during a period of 6 years. We included all patients with 2- (n=87) and 3-stage (n=100) paramedian forehead flaps who had consistent and complete electronic patient records and followed them up for at least 6 months after pedicle division. We performed a regression analysis to adjust for the unequal distribution of complex cases. RESULTS: Demographic factors and the causes for the nasal defects were similar in both groups. Although the nasal reconstructions were significantly more complex in the 3-stage group, the rate of partial forehead flap necrosis was similar in both groups (2-stage, 3.4%; 3-stage, 5%; P=0.601). A regression analysis showed that the relative risk of partial flap necrosis in complex cases did not differ significantly between groups (relative risk, 0.80; P=0.705). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, our study is the largest series published to date and the first one to compare the prevalence of forehead flap necrosis in the 2- versus the 3-stage technique for paramedian forehead flaps. We found no evidence that the use of a 3-stage forehead flap lowers the prevalence of necrosis. Until larger multicenter studies or meta-analyses can be conducted, smaller yet well-conducted studies such as the present one provide critical data and represent an important contribution to the field. Future research should investigate whether the 3-stage technique produces better aesthetic results than the 2-stage technique.