| Literature DB >> 29618861 |
Goutam Guha1, Dipmalya Chatterjee1, Siddhartha Biswas1, Kaushik Das1, Rupnarayan Bhattacharya1, Tapan Sarkar1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several flaps have been described for reconstructing facial or oral defects. Flaps such as forehead and pectoralis major are often too bulky for small-to-moderate-sized defects, for which nasolabial flaps are often ideal. However, nasolabial flaps have limited mobility and reach and may need two stages, particularly for intraoral defects. According to recent literatures, facial artery provides numerous small cutaneous perforators, based on which skin flaps can be islanded, with greater mobility and reach for reconstruction of small-to-moderate-sized intraoral and facial defects in one stage. Our study aims to evaluate the reliability and versatility of facial artery perforator-based flaps in the reconstruction of such defects.Entities:
Keywords: Facial artery; nasolabial flap; perforator, propeller flap
Year: 2017 PMID: 29618861 PMCID: PMC5868105 DOI: 10.4103/ijps.IJPS_91_16
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Plast Surg ISSN: 0970-0358
Questionnaire for oral functional and aesthetic outcome (Courtesy - Hofstra et al.)
Figure 1(a) A small dysplastic lesion at the lower lip and right oral commissure. The course of the facial artery along with the line of perforators has been marked using audio Doppler. (b) Lesion has been excised and an islanded flap has been elevated based on the subcutaneous pedicle containing the facial artery perforators. (c) A finger has been insinuated from the intra-oral aspect to the extra-oral aspect near the flap pedicle to show the route of inset of the flap. (d) The flap after the final inset. The donor site has been closed primarily. (e) The defect created after excision of the lesion was reconstructed with facial artery perforator-based islanded flap. Note the excellent lower lip contour with inconspicuous donor scar at 2-month follow-up. (f) The final appearance of the flap in the inner aspect at 2-month follow-up. Note the inclusion of hair-bearing part inside the oral cavity, which is a drawback of this flap
Figure 2(a) Squamous cell carcinoma at the left buccal mucosa. (b) The flap has been elevated in the nasolabial area. The perforator has been dissected out. (c) The flap has been islanded over the dissected perforator. (d) The flap has been transferred into the oral cavity by a direct orocutaneous route and inset at the defect to line the buccal mucosa. (e) Final appearance of the flap at 4-month follow-up. Note the well-settled flap with an adequate mouth opening
Figure 3(a) Squamous cell carcinoma at the left ala. Facial artery perforators have been localised using audio Doppler and marked. (b) Lesion has been excised resulting in full-thickness alar defect. Note the nasal septum visible through the alar defect in the lateral view. (c) Islanded flap has been designed. Note the two dissected perforators. The locations of these perforators are corroborative with the audio Doppler findings in a. (d) The caudal perforator has been ligated and the flap is rotated axially on the cranial perforator in a propeller fashion. After the final inset, both the inner lining and outer skin cover of ala have been recreated in single stage. The donor defect has been closed primarily. (e) The final appearance of the flap and the donor scar at 20-month follow-up. Note the well-settled flap and an almost inconspicuous donor scar that blended nicely with the nasolabial fold
Demography of patients, reconstructive details and outcomes
Types of flap complications
Chart 1Flap complication rate with increasing flap length
Chart 2Flap complication rate in different routes of inset
Chart 3Flap complication rate with same one- or two-stage neck dissection