Literature DB >> 31652216

Nasal Reconstruction With Two Stages Versus Three Stages Forehead Fap: What is Better for Patients With High Vascular Risk?

Federico Lo Torto1, Ugo Redi1, Emanuele Cigna2, Luigi Losco2, Marco Marcasciano1, Donato Casella1, Pedro Ciudad3, Diego Ribuffo1.   

Abstract

In nasal reconstruction, it is necessary to replace all anatomic layers in order to reinstate correct aesthetics. The most apt donor site to use in order to cover the nose has been recognized as forehead skin. Traditionally 2 phases are required to reconstruct the forehead flap; however, an intermediate third phase was described by Millard which is between transfer of the flap and division of the pedicle. These methods will be compared in this study with regard to both complication rates and aesthetic results in high vascular risk patients.46 patients were enrolled in the study, all of whom were undergoing either total or subtotal nasal reconstruction from January 2001 to March 2018. The 2-step technique (2S Group) was performed on 30 patients and the 3-step technique (3S Group) was performed on 16. Evaluation questionnaires were completed by patients and a plastic surgeon who was extraneous to the study to evaluate aesthetic satisfaction. Complications other than flap necrosis such as infection, wound dehiscence and hematoma were recorded. VAS and Likert mean values, used to evaluate aesthetic satisfaction, were examined with a Student t test and were discovered to be relevant. Complication rates studied with Fisher exact test showed no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. The 3-phase method for nose reconstruction using a forehead flap represents a better functional and aesthetic option for patients at high vascular risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31652216     DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000005894

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Craniofac Surg        ISSN: 1049-2275            Impact factor:   1.046


  5 in total

Review 1.  Effectiveness of Nasolabial Flap Versus Paramedian Forehead Flap for Nasal Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sourabh Shankar Chakraborty; Akhil Dhanesh Goel; Ranjit Kumar Sahu; Manojit Midya; Sudeshna Acharya; Neha Shakrawal
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2022-09-14       Impact factor: 2.708

2.  Clinical Evaluation of the Efficacy and Tolerability of Rigenase® and Polyhexanide (Fitostimoline® Plus) vs. Hyaluronic Acid and Silver Sulfadiazine (Connettivina® Bio Plus) for the Treatment of Acute Skin Wounds: A Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Raffaele Russo; Albino Carrizzo; Alfonso Barbato; Barbara Rosa Rasile; Paola Pentangelo; Alessandra Ceccaroni; Caterina Marra; Carmine Alfano; Luigi Losco
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-04-29       Impact factor: 4.964

3.  Early cardiac rehabilitation: could it improve functional outcomes and reduce length of stay and sanitary costs in patients aged 75 years or older? A retrospective case-control study.

Authors:  Marco Pizzorno; Manuela Desilvestri; Lorenzo Lippi; Manuela Marchioni; Andrea Audo; Alessandro de Sire; Marco Invernizzi; Luca Perrero
Journal:  Aging Clin Exp Res       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 3.636

Review 4.  Reconstruction of the Nose: Management of Nasal Cutaneous Defects According to Aesthetic Subunit and Defect Size. A Review.

Authors:  Luigi Losco; Alberto Bolletta; Diletta Maria Pierazzi; Davide Spadoni; Roberto Cuomo; Marco Marcasciano; Enrico Cavalieri; Ana Claudia Roxo; Paola Ciamarra; Carmen Cantisani; Emanuele Cigna
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2020-11-25       Impact factor: 2.430

5.  Application of FACE-Q and NOSE in Nasal Reconstruction with Paramedian Frontal Flap after Skin Cancer Resection.

Authors:  Vitor Penteado Figueiredo Pagotto; Rafael Mamoru Carneiro Tutihashi; Renan Diego Americo Ribeiro; Giulia Godoy Takahashi; Cristina Pires Camargo; Fábio de Freitas Busnardo; Rolf Gemperli
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2021-04-08
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.