Emmanuel J Jáuregui1, Neelima Tummala1, Rahul Seth2, Sarah Arron3, Isaac Neuhaus3, Siegrid Yu3, Roy Grekin3, P Daniel Knott2. 1. Medical student, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. 2. Section of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco Medical Center. 3. Department of Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: The paramedian forehead flap (PMFF) donor site scar is hard to disguise and may be a source of patient dissatisfaction. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the aesthetic outcome of W-plasty vs traditional straight-line (SL) closure techniques of the PMFF donor site. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center. Clinical history and operative reports were reviewed for 31 patients who underwent a PMFF procedure performed between November 1, 2011, and May 29, 2014. Blinded photographic analysis of postoperative photographs was performed. INTERVENTIONS: The pedicled component of the PMFF was raised primarily with either a W-plasty or traditional SL design. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Standard photographs of the donor site, obtained at least 90 days after surgery, were reviewed and scored in a blinded fashion by 4 dermatologic surgeons using a 100-point visual analog scale (from 0 [worst possible outcome] to 100 [best possible outcome]) and a 5-point Likert scale (from very poor to excellent). Interrater reliability was assessed via Cronbach α testing. RESULTS: All 31 forehead flaps survived during this study period; 16 PMFFs were raised with the W-plasty technique and 15 were raised with the SL technique. The W-plasty and SL groups were similar in terms of age, sex, and race/ethnicity (mean [SD] age, 68.4 [12.4] vs 61.8 [11.6] years; 13 [84%] vs 9 [60%] men; and 15 [94%] vs 13 [87%] white). Patients undergoing W-plasty closure had significantly higher mean visual analog scale scores compared with those undergoing SL closure (72.8 [18.3] vs 65.6 [18.1]; P = .03). Mean Likert scale scores for W-plasty were higher than those for SL closure, but the difference was not significant (3.77 [1.02] vs 3.43 [0.98]; P = .08). Overall interrater reliability for the visual analog scale and Likert scale scores were 0.67 and 0.58, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients undergoing PMFF donor site closure using a primary W-plasty technique demonstrated better mean scar appearance of the forehead donor site compared with SL closure. The primary W-plasty technique did not result in any PMFF losses and should be considered for appropriate patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
IMPORTANCE: The paramedian forehead flap (PMFF) donor site scar is hard to disguise and may be a source of patient dissatisfaction. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the aesthetic outcome of W-plasty vs traditional straight-line (SL) closure techniques of the PMFFdonor site. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center. Clinical history and operative reports were reviewed for 31 patients who underwent a PMFF procedure performed between November 1, 2011, and May 29, 2014. Blinded photographic analysis of postoperative photographs was performed. INTERVENTIONS: The pedicled component of the PMFF was raised primarily with either a W-plasty or traditional SL design. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Standard photographs of the donor site, obtained at least 90 days after surgery, were reviewed and scored in a blinded fashion by 4 dermatologic surgeons using a 100-point visual analog scale (from 0 [worst possible outcome] to 100 [best possible outcome]) and a 5-point Likert scale (from very poor to excellent). Interrater reliability was assessed via Cronbach α testing. RESULTS: All 31 forehead flaps survived during this study period; 16 PMFFs were raised with the W-plasty technique and 15 were raised with the SL technique. The W-plasty and SL groups were similar in terms of age, sex, and race/ethnicity (mean [SD] age, 68.4 [12.4] vs 61.8 [11.6] years; 13 [84%] vs 9 [60%] men; and 15 [94%] vs 13 [87%] white). Patients undergoing W-plasty closure had significantly higher mean visual analog scale scores compared with those undergoing SL closure (72.8 [18.3] vs 65.6 [18.1]; P = .03). Mean Likert scale scores for W-plasty were higher than those for SL closure, but the difference was not significant (3.77 [1.02] vs 3.43 [0.98]; P = .08). Overall interrater reliability for the visual analog scale and Likert scale scores were 0.67 and 0.58, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients undergoing PMFFdonor site closure using a primary W-plasty technique demonstrated better mean scar appearance of the forehead donor site compared with SL closure. The primary W-plasty technique did not result in any PMFF losses and should be considered for appropriate patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.