Literature DB >> 35832996

Anatomic Considerations of Microvascular Free Tissue Transfer in Endoscopic Endonasal Skull Base Surgery.

Leila J Mady1, Thomas M Kaffenberger2, Khalil Baddour2, Katie Melder2, Neal R Godse2, Paul Gardner3, Carl H Snyderman4, Mario G Solari2, Mark W Kubik2, Eric W Wang5, Shaum Sridharan5.   

Abstract

Objective  Though microvascular free tissue transfer is well established for open skull base reconstruction, normative data regarding flap design and inset after endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery (ESBS) is lacking. We aim to describe anatomical considerations of endoscopic endonasal inset of free tissue transfer of transclival (TC) and anterior cranial base resection (ACBR) defects. Design and Setting  Radial forearm free tissue transfer (RFFTT) model. Participants  Six cadaveric specimens. Main Outcome Measures  Pedicle orientation, pedicle length, and recipient vessel intraluminal diameter. Results  TC and ACBR defects averaged 17.2 and 11.7 cm 2 , respectively. Anterior and lateral maxillotomies and endoscopic medial maxillectomies were prepared as corridors for flap and pedicle passage. Premasseteric space tunnels were created for pedicle tunneling to recipient facial vessels. For TC defects, the RFFTT pedicle was oriented cranially with the flap placed against the clival defect (mean pedicle length 13.1 ± 0.6 cm). For ACBR defects, the RFFTT pedicle was examined in three orientations with respect to anterior-posterior axis of the RFFTT: anteriorly, posteriorly, and laterally. Lateral orientation offered the shortest average pedicle length required for anastomosis in the neck (11.6 ± 1.29 cm), followed by posterior (13.4 ± 0.7cm) and anterior orientations (14.4 ± 1.1cm) ( p  < 0.00001, analysis of variance). Conclusions  In ACBR reconstruction using RFFTT, our data suggests lateral pedicle orientation shortens the length required to safely anastomose facial vessels and protects the frontal sinus outflow anteriorly while limiting pedicle exposure through a maxillary corridor within the nasal cavity. With greater understanding of anatomical factors related to successful preoperative flap planning, free tissue transfer may be added to the ESBS reconstruction ladder. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  anterior cranial base; endoscopic endonasal; microvascular free tissue transfer; radial forearm; reconstruction; skull base surgery; transclival

Year:  2021        PMID: 35832996      PMCID: PMC9272245          DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1722935

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurol Surg B Skull Base        ISSN: 2193-634X


  42 in total

1.  Resurfacing of the nasopharynx after nasopharyngectomy using a free radial forearm flap.

Authors:  M L Khoo; K C Soo; P J Gullane; P C Neligan; S W Hong; J C Lee; J K Siow
Journal:  Head Neck       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 3.147

2.  Pericranial flap for endoscopic anterior skull-base reconstruction: clinical outcomes and radioanatomic analysis of preoperative planning.

Authors:  Mihir R Patel; Rupali N Shah; Carl H Snyderman; Ricardo L Carrau; Anand V Germanwala; Amin B Kassam; Adam M Zanation
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.654

3.  Transpterygoid transposition of a temporoparietal fascia flap: a new method for skull base reconstruction after endoscopic expanded endonasal approaches.

Authors:  Felipe S G Fortes; Ricardo L Carrau; Carl H Snyderman; Amin Kassam; Daniel Prevedello; Allan Vescan; Arlan Mintz; Paul Gardner
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.325

4.  Skull base reconstruction: an updated approach.

Authors:  Matthew M Hanasono; Amanda Silva; Roman J Skoracki; Paul W Gidley; Franco DeMonte; Ehab Y Hanna; David W Chang; Peirong Yu
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.730

5.  Salvage skull base reconstruction in the endoscopic era: Vastus lateralis free tissue transfer.

Authors:  Stephen Y Kang; Antoine Eskander; Ralph Abi Hachem; Enver Ozer; Theodoros N Teknos; Matthew O Old; Daniel M Prevedello; Ricardo L Carrau
Journal:  Head Neck       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 3.147

6.  Submental flap for reconstruction of anterior skull base, orbital, and high facial defects.

Authors:  Brent A Chang; S Ryan Hall; Brittany E Howard; Gregory S Neel; Carrlene Donald; Devyani Lal; Thomas H Nagel; Richard E Hayden
Journal:  Am J Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-11-22       Impact factor: 1.808

7.  Reconstruction of a nasopharyngeal defect from cervical spine osteoradionecrosis.

Authors:  Kiran Kakarala; Jeremy D Richmon; Marlene L Durand; Lawrence F Borges; Daniel G Deschler
Journal:  Skull Base       Date:  2010-07

8.  Abdominal Fat Graft for Sellar Reconstruction: Retrospective Outcomes Review and Technical Note.

Authors:  Elena Roca; David L Penn; Mina G Safain; William T Burke; Joseph P Castlen; Edward R Laws
Journal:  Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown)       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 2.703

9.  Flap selection in cranial base reconstruction.

Authors:  P C Neligan; S Mulholland; J Irish; P J Gullane; J B Boyd; F Gentili; D Brown; J Freeman
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 4.730

10.  Anterior and middle cranial fossa skull base reconstruction using microvascular free tissue techniques: surgical complications and functional outcomes.

Authors:  Ernest S Chiu; Dennis Kraus; Duc T Bui; Babak J Mehrara; Joseph J Disa; Mark Bilsky; Jatin P Shah; Peter G Cordeiro
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 1.539

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.