PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to perform a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent periorbital area reconstructions, determine their sociodemographic characteristics, analyze the effects of defect etiologies and locations classified according to periorbital subunits on our reconstruction options, and to present our treatment outcomes and clinical experience. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 23 patients operated in our department between January 2010 and March 2013 and underwent periorbital area reconstructions, was performed. In addition to the demographic characteristics of the patients; defect etiologies, locations according to Spinelli aesthetic subunits, and the degrees of involvement were determined. RESULT: Analysis of the reconstructive methods showed that primary closure with lateral cantholysis was performed in 1 patient with a defect involving less than 50% of zone 1 along with a partial defect involving less than 50% of zone 2. In another patient with a full-thickness defect involving 75% of zone 1, reconstruction was made with a temporally based monopedicle forehead transposition (Fricke) flap prepared from the lower eyelid, and a conchal cartilage graft. In 2 other patients with partial defects involving more than 50% of zone 2; reconstruction was made with full-thickness skin grafts taken from the retroauricular area. Four patients had full-thickness defects that involved 50% to 75% of zone 2; 3 of them were reconstructed with a Tenzel lateral semicircular rotation flap and 1 with a Tripier flap. In 3 patients who had full-thickness defects involving 75% of zone 2; reconstruction was made with a paramedian forehead flap and conchal cartilage graft. In 3 patients with full-thickness defects involving more than 75% of zone 2, a Mustarde cheek rotation flap was used for reconstruction. Six patients had defects in zone 3, 3 of them were reconstructed with a glabellar flap, 2 with a paramedian forehead flap, and 1 with a bilobed flap. One patient with a defect that involved 50% of zone 4 was reconstructed with a McGregor flap. CONCLUSIONS: Construction of a reconstructive algorithm by separation of the eyelid into aesthetic units and use of local healthy tissues provide functionally and aesthetically acceptable results.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to perform a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent periorbital area reconstructions, determine their sociodemographic characteristics, analyze the effects of defect etiologies and locations classified according to periorbital subunits on our reconstruction options, and to present our treatment outcomes and clinical experience. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 23 patients operated in our department between January 2010 and March 2013 and underwent periorbital area reconstructions, was performed. In addition to the demographic characteristics of the patients; defect etiologies, locations according to Spinelli aesthetic subunits, and the degrees of involvement were determined. RESULT: Analysis of the reconstructive methods showed that primary closure with lateral cantholysis was performed in 1 patient with a defect involving less than 50% of zone 1 along with a partial defect involving less than 50% of zone 2. In another patient with a full-thickness defect involving 75% of zone 1, reconstruction was made with a temporally based monopedicle forehead transposition (Fricke) flap prepared from the lower eyelid, and a conchal cartilage graft. In 2 other patients with partial defects involving more than 50% of zone 2; reconstruction was made with full-thickness skin grafts taken from the retroauricular area. Four patients had full-thickness defects that involved 50% to 75% of zone 2; 3 of them were reconstructed with a Tenzel lateral semicircular rotation flap and 1 with a Tripier flap. In 3 patients who had full-thickness defects involving 75% of zone 2; reconstruction was made with a paramedian forehead flap and conchal cartilage graft. In 3 patients with full-thickness defects involving more than 75% of zone 2, a Mustarde cheek rotation flap was used for reconstruction. Six patients had defects in zone 3, 3 of them were reconstructed with a glabellar flap, 2 with a paramedian forehead flap, and 1 with a bilobed flap. One patient with a defect that involved 50% of zone 4 was reconstructed with a McGregor flap. CONCLUSIONS: Construction of a reconstructive algorithm by separation of the eyelid into aesthetic units and use of local healthy tissues provide functionally and aesthetically acceptable results.