Simplifying the Forehead Flap for Nasal Reconstruction: A Review of 420 Consecutive Cases

State of the Evidence for Facial Skin Cancer Reconstruction

This review provides a comprehensive presentation of the evidence available in facial reconstruction post-Mohs micrographic surgery. Given the large diversity in post-Mohs reconstruction, there are limited guidelines in the management of defects. The aim of the present work is to provide a review of the best evidence as it pertains to several considerations in facial reconstruction. Data suggests that Mohs micrographic surgery and many reconstructive procedures can be performed as outpatient procedures under local anesthesia, with narcotic pain medication only given in certain patient populations following a minority of reconstructive procedures. Perioperative and topical antibiotics are generally not indicated. Aspirin and warfarin can generally be continued for most reconstructive procedures, but clopidogrel and novel anticoagulants may predispose to increased bleeding complications. Delayed reconstruction appears to be safe, although data are discordant on this topic. No specific wound closure technique or suture choice appears to be consistently superior. Given the lack of robust comparative studies, consistent methodology, and variable defect sizes/locations, no robust evidence-based guidelines can be generated for reconstruction techniques of facial subsites.

Nasal reconstruction with the expanded forehead flap: Long-term follow-up of esthetic outcome and 12-year experience

BACKGROUND

The expanded forehead flap has its unique advantage in nasal reconstruction. The authors present their 12-year experience with nasal reconstruction with an expanded forehead flap. The esthetic and functional outcomes were assessed with long-term subjective and objective evaluations.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of consecutive patients who underwent nasal reconstruction with the expanded forehead flap from 2009 to 2021 performed by the senior author (F.F.). Data were collected and analyzed regarding defect characteristics, processes of treatment, and complications. Subjective esthetic and functional outcomes were assessed through questionnaires FACE-Q (Face Questionnaire) and NOSE (Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation). The objective esthetic outcome was assessed by a senior resident through the viewing of clinical photographs.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-five patients underwent nasal reconstruction with an expanded forehead flap. The average expansion period was 174 days, and the injection volume was 685.7 ml. There were 15 complications. One hundred and eight patients (69.6%) were satisfied, and 19 patients (12.2%) were very satisfied with the outcome. The differences between postoperative and preoperative scores of FACE-Q were statistically significant (p < 0.01). Sixty-nine percent of patients complained of bilateral eyebrow asymmetry, 27.1% of patients reported partial recovery of frontal deformity with dissatisfaction, and 2.6% of patients considered not recovered at all. The results of 78 patients (50.3%) were considered "satisfied," and 41 patients (26.5%) were considered "very satisfied" by objective evaluation.

CONCLUSION

Nasal reconstruction with an expanded forehead flap was a safe technique with good esthetic outcomes. Although problems with the asymmetry of the eyebrows and frontal deformation were presented, the influence was minimal and well-accepted by most patients.

Expanded forehead flap in Asian nasal reconstruction

This article reviewed our experience of Chinese nasal reconstruction over 12 years and evaluated the effect of expanded forehead flap both aesthetically and functionally. The special skin type and other anatomic features of Chinese patients was understood thoroughly during the treatment. This article thus catered for the need of multiracial nasal reconstruction. We analyzed existing clinical data and demonstrated a typical case in detail. The postoperative result supported our strategy which advocated the extensive application of expanded forehead flap, together with flip scar flap as the internal lining. The features of Chinese patients also prompted the use of costal and auricular cartilage. Emerging technology like 3D-printing would benefit nasal reconstruction from more aspects.

Comparison of Hand-Held Doppler and Indocyanine Green Angiography in Preoperative Design of Expanded Forehead Flaps for Nasal Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Despite the different approaches for detection of perforators, methods of vascular mapping of the expanded forehead flap for nasal reconstruction are rarely described. This article aimed to present our experience in the preoperative design of the expanded forehead flap for nasal reconstruction and to compare the clinical practice of hand-held Doppler and indocyanine green angiography (ICGA) in vascular mapping for nasal reconstruction with the expanded forehead flap.

METHODS

From October 2019 to April 2022, 26 patients underwent nasal reconstruction using expanded forehead flap. The authors performed preoperative vascular mapping on 16 patients by hand-held Doppler alone, and on 10 patients by hand-held Doppler and ICGA primary outcomes considered were the visualization of the main vascular course of the flap obtained by hand-held Doppler or ICGA, intraoperative observation of the flap, and its postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Indocyanine green angiography provides a better detection in distal flap and the branches of the supratrochlear artery. Vein detection by ICGA generally corresponds to the results obtained by the combination of hand-held Doppler and transillumination test. In the group that only used hand-held Doppler, 2 patients presented hemodynamic complications in the margin of the flap and 1 patient presented partial necrosis postoperatively. No complication was found in the group that used ICGA.

CONCLUSIONS

It is recommended to use the ICGA for preoperative planning, as it yields highly accurate vascular courses. As an alternative to other methods, hand-held Doppler is also an effective tool.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

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

BACKGROUND

Different studies performed on nasal subunit reconstruction by either the nasolabial flap or the paramedian forehead flap have reported contradictory outcomes and complications, claiming one flap or the other as superior. This inconsistency has led to a gap in existing literature regarding the preferable flap for nasal reconstruction. Our aim was to statistically evaluate and compare these two flaps for nasal reconstruction, in terms of subunit preference, complications, and outcomes, using data from previous studies.

METHODS

This systematic review is reported using PRISMA protocol and was registered with the International prospective register of systematic reviews. The literature search was done using "paramedian forehead flap", "nasolabial flap", "melolabial flap", "nasal reconstruction". Data regarding demography of study and population, subunit reconstructed, complications, and aesthetic outcomes were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed using MetaXL and summary of findings using GRADEpro GDT.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies were included, and data from 2036 followed-up patients were extracted for the review. Meta-analysis was done on data from nine studies. Difference in alar reconstruction by forehead versus nasolabial flap is statistically significant [pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.3; 95% CI 0.01, 0.92; p = 0.72; I² = 0%, n = 6 studies], while for dorsum and columella reconstruction the difference is not statistically significant. Risk of alar notching is marginally more in forehead flap, however difference in incidence of partial/complete flap necrosis, alar notching and hematoma/bleeding among the flaps is not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Alar reconstruction is preferred by nasolabial flap. Complications are similar in both groups. Comparison of aesthetic outcome needs further exploration.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Development of a Risk Prediction Model for Complications Following Forehead Flaps for Nasal and Periorbital Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Forehead flaps are a workhorse for nasal reconstruction, but complications occur in up to 30% of patients and risk factors are not well characterized. This study aimed to identify risk factors for complications, and provide clinicians a method to stratify patient risk to facilitate shared decision-making.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who underwent forehead flaps between 2007 and 2020. Demographic and treatment characteristics were abstracted, in addition to clinical outcomes data. Multivariable regression was conducted, with step-wise variable elimination to determine inclusion in the final model. From the final regression, a risk-stratification scheme was developed.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-seven patients underwent forehead flap reconstruction, with a mean age of 68.5 years. Mean follow-up time was 42 months. There were 50 (25.4%) patients who developed a complication, including impaired nasal function (18.8%), flap congestion (5.1%), infection (2.5%), poor donor site healing (2.5%) wound dehiscence (2.0%), and flap congestion (1.5%). On univariate analysis, female sex, immunosuppression, prior radiotherapy, and larger resection area were associated with complications ( P <0.05). On multivariable analysis, female sex [odds ratio (OR): 3.89, P <0.001], hypoalbuminemia (OR: 3.70, P =0.01), and prior wide local excision (OR: 3.62, P =0.04) were predictors of complications. A clinical calculator was developed incorporating these risk factors, with a C-statistic of 0.85, indicating strong predictive value.

CONCLUSIONS

We conducted the most comprehensive review of risk factors for the development of complications after forehead flap reconstruction. From this analysis, a novel, implementable, risk-stratification scheme was developed to equip surgeons with the ability to provide individualized risk assessment to patients and address preoperative comorbidities to optimize outcomes.

Paramedian forehead flap in the treatment of nasal, non-melanoma skin cancer: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

nose is the central point of the face and vulnerable to the occurence of non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), impacting on appearance. The paramedian forehead flap (PMFF) is considered the best option to treat extensive nasal defects. The objective of this study is to present the experience on PMFF for nasal reconstruction in the treatment of NMSC of a cancer referral center.

METHODS

retrospective study was carried out through data from medical records of patients who underwent nasal reconstruction with PMFF due to NMSC at the Cancer Institute of the State of São Paulo (ICESP).

RESULTS

111 patients were identified, mostly ederly, with comorbidities and on initial tumors (T1 and T2). Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) was the predominant histological type. Dorsum and tip were the most affected subunitis. In addition to skin coverage, reconstruction of the lining and structural framework was also performed in half of the cases. Second intention healing was the technique of choice in closing the donor area. Pedicle division ocurred predominantly in the second operation and the median time to complete reconstruction was 6 months. There were low complication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

the PMFF is safe and effective to treat nose NMSC, even in cases of high complexity. Since the treatment time can be prolonged and impact on quality of life, it is essential to emphasize and discuss this aspect with the patients before surgery.

Retalho frontal paramediano no tratamento do câncer de pele não-melanoma de nariz: um estudo transversal

RESUMO Introdução: o nariz é o ponto central da face e vulnerável à ocorrência de câncer de pele não-melanoma (CPNM), com impacto potencial na aparência. O retalho frontal paramediano (RFPM) é considerado a melhor opção para o tratamento de defeitos extensos no nariz. O objetivo deste estudo é apresentar a experiência de um centro oncológico de referência no uso de RFPM para reconstrução nasal no tratamento do CPNM. Métodos: estudo retrospectivo foi desenvolvido através do levantamento de dados de prontuário de pacientes submetidos à reconstrução nasal com RFPM devido à CPNM no Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo (ICESP). Resultados: 111 pacientes foram identificados, a maioria idosos, com comorbidades e portadores de tumores iniciais (T1 e T2). O carcinoma basocelular (CBC) foi o tipo histológico predominante. Dorso e ponta foram as subunidades mais acometidas. Além da cobertura cutânea, em metade dos casos foi realizada também a reconstrução do forro ou arcabouço do nariz. Cicatrização por segunda intenção foi a técnica de escolha no fechamento da área doadora. A liberação do pedículo foi realizada predominantemente no segundo tempo cirúrgico e o tempo para finalização do tratamento teve mediana de 6 meses. Houve baixa taxa de complicações. Conclusões: o RFPM é seguro e eficaz no tratamento do CPNM nasal, mesmo em casos de elevada complexidade. O tempo total de tratamento pode ser prolongado e impactar na qualidade de vida, sendo fundamental enfatizar e discutir este aspecto com o paciente antes da cirurgia.

Fine Details That Improve Nasal Reconstruction

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Identify common negative outcomes that arise with conventional nasal reconstruction. 2. Understand the technical refinements that help avoid and reduce negative outcomes in nasal reconstruction. 3. Learn about the utility of regional axial island flaps for nasal reconstruction, in particular, the lateral nasal artery flap.

SUMMARY

Nasal reconstruction has been a preoccupation of surgeons dating to before 600 bc. The nose is the central focal point of the face and a key identifying facial feature, and surgery to the nose can prove to be challenging to even the most experienced surgeon. The objective of this CME article is to outline the most commonly used surgical options for each nasal aesthetic subunit, and the specific complications observed for each. The best surgical options and technical refinements are highlighted, and principles that may help restore the nose are outlined.

Consistent Value of Two-Stage Pedicle Flaps in the Age of Microsurgical Maxillofacial Reconstruction

Introduction

Up to the second half of the twentieth century, pedicled flaps marked the gold standard in reconstructive surgery. Followed by the introduction of microsurgical techniques, these flaps were increasingly abandoned. We conducted a retrospective study to determine the value of two-stage pedicle flaps in modern maxillofacial reconstruction.

Material & Methods

A chart review from October 2017 to November 2020 was performed to identify patients who were treated by a two-stage pedicle flap in our Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.

Results

A total of 31 patients, 17 female and 14 males received 36 two-stage pedicle flaps. All patients were in noticeably impaired health condition with a majority of ASA-score 3. The defect location mainly contained extraoral resections (58.3%). A variety of flaps were harvested consisting of buccal flaps, Abbe flaps, forehead flaps, deltopectoral flaps, nasolabial flaps, and a tubed flap.

Discussion

The study outlines two indications for the use of two-stage pedicle flaps. Firstly, as a back-up strategy in heavily pre-treated wound beds and secondly in an almost contrarily indication as a first-choice reconstructive option of the facial skin in esthetic demanding cases.

Conclusion

The timesaving and straight forward surgical approach as well as their low postsurgical complications and strong long-time success rates secure the two-stage pedicle flap a justified niche role in times of microsurgical maxillofacial reconstruction.

Nasal Reconstruction after Mohs Cancer Resection: Lessons Learned from 2553 Consecutive Cases

BACKGROUND

Nasal defects following Mohs resection are a reconstructive challenge, demanding aesthetic and functional considerations. Many reconstructive modalities are available, each with varying utility and efficacy. The goal of this study was to provide an algorithmic approach to nasal reconstruction and illustrate lessons learned from decades of reconstructing Mohs defects.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of consecutive patients who underwent nasal reconstruction after Mohs excision from 2003 to 2019 performed by the senior author (J.F.T.). Data were collected and analyzed regarding patient and clinical demographics, defect characteristics, reconstructive modality used, revisions, and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 2553 cases were identified, among which 1550 (1375 patients) were analyzed. Defects most commonly affected the nasal ala (48.1 percent); 74.8 percent were skin-only. Full-thickness skin-grafts were the most common reconstructive method (36.2 percent); 24.4 percent of patients underwent forehead flaps and 17.0 percent underwent nasolabial flaps. The overall complication rate was 11.6 percent (n = 181), with poor wound healing being most common. Age older than 75 years, defects larger than 2 cm2, and active smoking were associated with increased complication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Nasal reconstruction can be divided based on anatomical location, and an algorithmic approach facilitates excellent results. Although local flaps may be suitable for some patients, they are not always the most aesthetic option. The versatility and low risk-to-benefit profile of the forehead flap make it a suitable option for elderly patients. Although reconstruction is still safe to be performed without discontinuation of anticoagulation, older age, smoking, and large defect size are predictors of complications.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Morbidity Associated With Structural Graft Use in Paramedian Forehead Flap

INTRODUCTION

Paramedian forehead flap for nasal reconstruction may involve the use of a structural graft. The authors hypothesized that the use of structural grafts with paramedian forehead flap is associated with an increased risk of 30-day complications.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of the American College of Surgeon (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). We identified all patients undergoing paramedian forehead flap reconstruction from 2007 through 2018 using Current Procedural Terminology code 15731. Patients who had structural graft harvested at the time of paramedian forehead flap were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Groups were defined based on the use of structural grafts. Propensity score matching was performed using preoperative and intraoperative characteristics to produce matched cohorts. The authors further stratified individual graft types to identify differential risks associated with each. Logistic regression was then used to determine whether the use of structural grafts was associated with increased risk for 30-day complications.

RESULTS

The authors identified 1198 patients with paramedian forehead flap reconstruction, of whom 325 (27.1%) required structural grafts. Propensity score matching 1:1 yielded 247 patients in each of the matched cohorts. Overall 30-day complications (4.5% versus 5.3%), wound related complications (3.2% versus 4.1%), systemic complications (1.2% versus 2%), unplanned reoperation (6.5% versus 3.2%), and unplanned readmission (6.6% versus 10.2%) were similar between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). Subgroup analysis of different graft types showed that costochondral graft was associated with increased wound related complications (0.9% versus 8.3%, P = 0.03). The odds of having wound related complications with the use of costochondral graft was OR = 5.3, CI = 1.5-18.8, P = 0.02.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the use of structural grafts does not increase risk of overall 30-day complications, there is an increased risk of wound related complications associated with the use of costochondral and rib grafts.

A Strategy for Integrative Reconstruction of Midface Defects Using an Extended Forehead Flap

Background: Midface reconstruction is challenging because the structures and deformities involved are complicated. In this study, we present a strategy for integrally reconstructing nasal and midface defects, including hair-bearing defects, using extended forehead-expanded flaps. Methods: From 2015 to 2018, a total of 22 patients with midface defects underwent reconstruction with extended forehead-expanded flaps. The far end of the expanded flap, which included scalp hair, was used to cover the upper lip defect (Type 1). In cases with large perioral defects (Type 2), we designed two separate supratrochlear artery flaps, one with a shorter pedicle for nasal reconstruction and the other with a longer pedicle for partial reconstruction. The pedicle of the longer flap was saved for upper lip recovery after pedicle interruption. Results: Among the 22 patients (13 male and 9 female), 17 were caused by burns and 5 by trauma. Nineteen patients had Type 1 defects, and three had Type 2 defects. The average postoperative follow-up was 17.6 ± 4.3 months. Patient satisfaction was excellent in most patients. Conclusions: Our extended forehead flap strategy can achieve aesthetic recovery of nasal and perioral defects with a single expansion treatment. The expanded flap can be flexibly designed to fit diverse midface defects.

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

INTRODUCTION

Nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is responsible for high morbidity and mortality, resulting in a high cost to the health system. The nose is the leading region affected by this type of tumor and may need reconstruction by tissue transfer. The paramedian forehead flap (PFF) is one of the main options used, and the factors that influence the result should be studied. The FACE-Q questionnaire allows the assessment of appearance, quality of life, and side effects related to the procedure, whereas the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation questionnaire enables the nose function evaluation.

METHODS

This study evaluates nasal reconstruction with a PFF after resection of NMSC with the FACE-Q questionnaire and Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation. Spearman Rank correlation coefficient tests between the questionnaire results and patients' characteristics were performed.

RESULTS

The questionnaires were completely answered by 49 patients who underwent this reconstruction between 2011 and 2019 in a cancer center. The patients' evaluations demonstrate high satisfaction with appearance, quality of life, side effects, and function. Completing reconstruction under 6 months was associated with a higher quality of life among patients (P = 0.002). Reconstruction of lining or scaffold, moment of flap division, complications, and number of operations did not show an association.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the PFF is a reliable option for nasal reconstruction. Identifying the total reconstruction time as an impact factor on patients' quality of life should be considered when planning treatment.

Use of Dorsal Nasal Flap in Combination With Nasolabial Perforator Propeller Flap for Reconstruction of Nasal Skin Defects of Medium to Large Size; A Simpler Alternative to Frontal Flap

ABSTRACT

Nasal reconstruction is one of the most challenging procedures in plastic surgery. To get optimal aesthetic and functional results, the surgeon should know all the options well. Forehead flap is the gold standard technique for closure of medium to large defects of the nose. Although it provides a very good color and texture match, it may become a difficult option in patients with poor condition. The aim of this study was to define a simpler technique for nasal reconstruction using combined local flaps.Twelve patients, operated using a dorsal nasal flap combined with a nasolabial perforator propeller flap, were presented in the study. Properties of the patients, defect size and locations, and complications were evaluated.The mean size of the reconstructed defects was 10.1 cm2. No flap loss was observed. Venous congestion was the most common complication and resolved spontaneously in all cases. Two cases had partial distal necrosis, which also healed spontaneously.Closure was achieved successfully in all cases with a medium to large nasal defect using a combined dorsal nasal flap and nasolabial perforator propeller flap. This method can be used as an alternative to forehead flap.

Office-Based Forehead Flaps: A Safe and Reliable Reconstructive Option

BACKGROUND

Forehead flaps are one of the workhorse flaps for nasal reconstruction, especially for large defects involving the nasal tip, ala, or multiple nasal subunits. Forehead flaps are often performed on older patients who have accompanying comorbidities and who may be at higher risk for anesthetic complications. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the safety and success of forehead flap nasal reconstruction in 2 different clinical settings: those performed under local anesthesia in an office-based procedure room, compared with those performed in the operating room under either general anesthesia or intravenous sedation.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who underwent forehead flap reconstruction between the years of 2011 and 2018 by the senior author. Patient demographics, operative details, and postoperative complications were recorded and analyzed. Patients were followed for 1 year postoperatively or until the end of the study period. Patients were excluded if they had an accompanying unrelated cosmetic procedures performed during first-stage forehead flap reconstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 96 forehead flaps were performed, 35 of which (36.5%) were done in an office-based procedure room using local anesthesia only. Patient ages ranged from 45 to 92 years, with an average age of 71.9 years. The majority of flaps (n = 81, 85.3%) were divided at the second-stage procedure. There was no statistically significant difference in time elapsed between first- and second-stage procedures between groups (procedure room: 22.6 days; operating room: 23.8 days). There were 13 total postoperative complications (13.5%), but there was no statistically significant difference in complication rate between groups (office-based: 3 complications, 8.6%; operating room: 10 complications, 16.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that forehead flap reconstruction can be done safely with acceptable postoperative results when performed under local anesthesia in an office-based outpatient setting.

Treatment of Non-melanoma Skin Cancers in the Absence of Mohs Micrographic Surgery

Non-melanoma skin cancers are the most common malignancies globally. Although non-melanoma skin cancers exhibit low metastatic potential, they can be locally destructive, necessitating complex excisions and reconstructions. Mohs micrographic surgery is the gold-standard treatment for high-risk non-melanoma skin cancers in patients who are appropriate surgical candidates. Despite its efficacy, Mohs micrographic surgery is not readily available in most geographic regions, necessitating that plastic surgeons be well-versed in alternative treatment modalities for non-melanoma skin cancer. Herein, we will discuss the management of non-melanoma skin cancers in settings where Mohs micrographic surgery is not readily available.

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

The nose represents the most common site for the presentation of cutaneous cancer, especially in sun-exposed areas: ala, dorsum, and tip. Even the smallest loss of substance can create aesthetic and psychosocial concerns for patients; therefore, surgeons who perform nasal reconstruction should be strictly confident with the pertinent surgical anatomy in order to tailor the procedure to the patient’s condition and needs. Radical tumor excision and satisfactory aesthetic and functional results are primary targets. Restoring the original shape is the goal of any reconstruction: appropriate reshaping of three-dimensional geometry, proper establishment of symmetry, and excellent color and texture match to the adjacent structures are paramount features. Multiple options exist to re-establish functional and aesthetic integrity after surgical oncology; nevertheless, the management of nasal defects can be often challenging, and the gold standard is yet to be found. The current goal is to highlight some of the more common techniques used to reconstruct cutaneous defects of the nose with a specific focus on decision making based on the aesthetic subunit and defect size. The authors attempt to share common pitfalls and offer practical suggestions that they have found helpful in their clinical experience.

Repair of severe traumatic nasal alar defects with combined pedicled flap and conchal cartilage composite grafts: a retrospective study

Background

Repair of traumatic alar defect is challenging because poor blood supply is caused by contracture scars, which sometimes extend beyond the alar groove. However, few studies have investigated the reconstruction results of severe traumatic cases. This study aimed to examine the clinical outcomes of severe traumatic alar defect reconstruction using either pedicled nasolabial or forehead flaps combined with conchal cartilage.

Methods

This retrospective study investigated the clinical characteristics and treatment effects of 17 patients with severe traumatic alar defects treated in a single plastic surgery center from March 1, 2015, to September 1, 2018. All cases were scored and graded with regard to the size and depth of the alar defect and the surrounding scar according to the Alar Defect Severity Score (ADSS). Surgical outcomes were evaluated on the basis of the severity of defect before repair, donor site distortion, and postoperative nasal symmetry, especially shape and color.

Results

The average ADSS of the cases was 8.1±0.8 (highest score, 9.0). No flap necrosis or any complications were observed postoperatively. The symmetry of the bilateral alae was satisfactory. No color distinction between grafts and surrounding tissues, retraction, or inferior displacement of the ala was observed at an average follow-up of 24.2±10.4 months (range, 8–42 months). The average postoperative surgeon-based evaluation score was 4.3±0.2 (highest score, 5.0). Esthetic and functional results were satisfactory in all cases.

Conclusions

A pedicled flap combined with conchal composite grafts should be considered for the treatment of severe traumatic alar defect. This is a reproducible technique that enables a predictably decent outcome for severe traumatic alar defect, especially in Asian patients.

Ear Reconstruction after Mohs Cancer Excision: Lessons Learned from 327 Consecutive Cases

BACKGROUND

The ear serves many functional and aesthetic purposes, and its complex structure presents a notable challenge for reconstruction. A paucity of objective data and analysis on reconstruction of acquired ear defects remains. The goal of this study was to evaluate all ear reconstructions and the lessons learned over the past decades in treating these complicated defects in a large clinical Mohs reconstruction practice.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent ear reconstruction after Mohs cancer excision from 2004 to 2018 performed by the senior author (J.F.T) was conducted. Data regarding patient demographics, oncologic type, treatment, defect characteristics, reconstructive modalities, number of stages, and complications were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-seven patients underwent ear reconstruction. Defects most commonly involved the superior one-third of the helix and the antihelix. Approximately half of the patients' defects were reconstructed with full-thickness skin grafts, and approximately one-third of the patients' defects required flap reconstruction. There were 30 complications (9 percent), ranging from partial flap loss to cancer recurrence. There was no difference in complication rates in elderly patients compared with the younger cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimizing results when reconstructing ear defects is challenging, and there are multiple preoperative variables to consider. Ear reconstruction is safe in an outpatient setting, and age should not preclude patients from undergoing reconstruction of ear defects. The lessons learned from the past decade of ear reconstructions are demonstrated, and an algorithmic approach to treating these defects allows for a safe and reproducible method for reconstructing acquired ear defects.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

A New Approach to an Old Flap: A Technique to Augment Venous Drainage from the Paramedian Forehead Flap

The paramedian forehead flap is commonly used in nasal reconstruction, and survival of the distal part of the flap is usually essential for a good cosmetic outcome. Venous congestion leading to tissue necrosis is a recognized complication with this flap. The standard paramedian forehead flap is designed with a number of aims. These are to include the supratrochlear artery, to maximize mobility of the flap pedicle, to maximize the reach of the flap, and to minimize cosmetic implications at the donor site. The supratrochlear artery does not possess sizable venae comitantes; thus, the main pathway for venous drainage of the paramedian forehead flap is through superficial veins. The pattern and location of the superficial veins varies and therefore a standard skin pedicle design cannot be expected to always include sufficient veins to prevent venous congestion and subsequent flap necrosis. This article demonstrates the superficial venous anatomy of the forehead using computed tomographic venography, clinical demonstration, and cadaveric dissection, and describes a technique that can be carried out to augment flap venous drainage by performing careful dissection to identify additional superficial veins at the margins of the flap skin pedicle. One or more veins can then be mobilized and included with the flap pedicle to augment its venous drainage. Use of this technique should lead to a lower incidence of flap necrosis secondary to venous congestion.

Current Basal and Squamous Cell Skin Cancer Management

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Characterize basal and squamous cell carcinomas as low or high risk based on size, location, histology, and clinical features. 2. Understand appropriate surgical margins in low- and high-risk lesions, and other management options, including Mohs micrographic surgery, electrodissection and curettage, topical agents, cryotherapy, photodynamic therapy, and radiation therapy. 3. Discuss adjuvant therapies for locally advanced and metastatic disease, including radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapies such as hedgehog pathway inhibitors. 4. Educate patients on preventive measures such as skin examinations, sun protection, oral retinoids, and oral nicotinamide (vitamin B3). 5. Devise a reconstructive plan once clear oncologic margins are obtained.

SUMMARY

With the growing incidence of basal and squamous cell carcinoma, there is an increasing demand for appropriate oncologic management and aesthetic reconstruction. The goal of this CME article is to provide a foundation of knowledge to accurately diagnose, stage, and treat nonmelanoma skin cancers. In addition, it provides the practicing plastic surgeon alternate tools for managing these skin lesions, including topical agents, destructive therapies, and radiation therapy. Lastly, reconstructive plans for selected soft-tissue defects are discussed.

A Decade's Experience: A Sound Framework as the Foundation to Nasal Reconstruction

The goal of nasal reconstruction surgery is to restore normal nasal shape and function, and its success begins with creating a stable framework. In this article the authors discuss the most advantageous materials for building such a framework and how to design this element to achieve better and more durable outcomes. This is a retrospective study including patients who underwent nasal reconstruction in our rhinoplasty and nasal reconstruction center at a tertiary referral hospital between 2006 and 2016. Data included patient characteristics, defect location, the reason for defect, use of supporting structure, flap, lining, and complications were recorded. The minimum postoperative follow-up was at least 6 months after the last operation. This study included 455 patients. Nasal defects treated most commonly involved zone 2 and an average defect of 4.2 subunits. Expanded forehead flap for cover with costal cartilage as a framework and turn-over flap combined with distal end of the flap for lining was the most common reconstruction method used in this study. The complication rate was 4.39% and nearly half of these complications were related to usage of an expander during reconstruction. Regardless of flap used, the supporting structure was the most critical element for the 3-dimensional shape of the reconstructed nose. As 1 of the 3 elements of nasal reconstruction, framework deserves adequate attention during such reconstruction.

Broadening applications and insights into the cross-paramedian forehead flap over a 19-year period

BACKGROUND

Forehead flap reconstruction of large nasal defects can be challenging. The senior author has used a paramedian forehead flap modification using the supratrochlear artery on the contralateral side of the defect.

METHODS

A 9-year retrospective review (2008-2016) was performed for patients undergoing nasal reconstruction with the cross-paramedian forehead flap. Outcomes were analyzed by comparing our previous reviews, which allows us to analyze patient outcomes for over 19 years.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients were identified. The aasal defect was most frequently due to basal cell carcinoma (n = 37, 69.8%). Twenty-three (43%) patients were smokers, and nine (17%) had diabetes. The mean defect size was 12.9 cm², involving an average of 2.6 nasal subunits. One-third of the patients had cartilage defects (n = 18) and mucosal lining defects (n = 19). Periorbital involvement was present in five patients. Complications included partial flap loss (n = 6), donor site dehiscence (n = 4), flap dehiscence (n = 2), and postoperative infection (n = 1). Only two of the partial flap losses were considered significant, as they required additional reconstructive procedures for soft tissue coverage. Complications were 12 times as likely as those in diabetes (OR = 11.97, p = 0.007, 95% CI 1.94-72.44), six times as likely as those in cartilage defects (OR = 6.4, p = 0.007, 95% CI 1.64-24.92), and nearly five times as likely as those in mucosal lining defects (OR = 4.8, p = 1.27-18.09, 95% CI 1.27-18.09). Thirty-one patients required revisions most commonly for flap debulking (n = 16).

CONCLUSION

The cross-paramedian forehead flap is a reliable option in the armamentarium of the reconstructive surgeon for large and complex defects in addition to those with periorbital extension.

SUMMARY

Coverage of distal nasal defects after tumor extirpation remains a challenge to the reconstructive surgeon. Our institution uses the cross-paramedian forehead flap for these defects. This flap is based on the supratrochlear artery on the contralateral side of the defect and is oriented obliquely across the forehead for additional length and an improved donor site scar at the level of the eyebrow. The technique and outcomes were published in 2009, and this manuscript serves as an update on outcomes and applications during the past 9 years. By including all our data, we can analyze outcomes for over 19 years. During the past 9 years, 53 patients underwent the cross-paramedian forehead flap technique between 2008 and 2016. These patients were found to have an average defect size of 12.9 cm² and an average loss of 2.6 nasal subunits. Cartilage defects were present in 34.6% (n = 18) and mucosal defects were present in 36.5% (n = 19) of patients. Five patients had periorbital reconstruction with the forehead flap, of which three patients underwent a single-stage islandized forehead flap reconstruction. Given the large defect size, additional local flaps were frequently used, including nasolabial flaps (n = 16) and cheek rearrangement (n = 11). Complications included partial flap loss (n = 6), donor site dehiscence (n = 4), and postoperative infection (n = 1). Only two of these partial flap losses were considered significant, as they required additional reconstructive procedures to address areas of soft tissue loss. Increased rates of complications were associated with the presence of diabetes and defect characteristics, which reflects increased complexity including mucosal and cartilage loss. When comparing with our prior review of this technique, the more recent population have had increasing complexity of the nasal defects with a large surface area involvement. Overall, the cross-paramedian forehead flap is a reliable option in the armamentarium of the reconstructive surgeon for large and distal nasal defects.

Approach to Reconstruction of Nasal Defects

The nose is the most central and anterior projecting facial feature. Therefore, the presence of a defect is easily noticeable to the untrained eye. Return of the defect to the original form is an achievable end goal of reconstruction, necessitating appropriate reformation of three-dimensional geometry, proper establishment of symmetry, and excellent color and texture match to the adjacent structures. Regarding its physiological importance, disruption of the normal function may cause respiratory obstruction and contribute to patient distress. To achieve successful repair, preoperative preparation must consider the location, the layers involved, and the size of the defect. Prompt and well-organized repair minimizes the occurrence of progressive necrosis and severe late-stage deformity. Here the authors provide a framework to approach various nasal defects and provide a review of the novel ideologies and techniques. The workhorse of nasal repair, the forehead flap, is discussed independently due to the breadth of innovation.

[Research progress of pedicled flaps for defect repair and reconstruction after head and neck tumor resection]

Objective

To summarize the current status of pedicled flaps for defect repair and reconstruction after head and neck tumor resection, and to present its application prospects.

Methods

Related literature was reviewed, and the role evolution of pedicled flaps in the reconstruction of head and neck defects were discussed. The advance, anatomical basis, indications, advantages, disadvantages, and modification of several frequently used pedicled flaps were summarized.

Results

The evolution of pedicled flaps application showed a resurgence trend in recent years. Some new pedicled flaps, e.g., submental artery island flap, supraclavicular artery island flap, submandibular gland flap, and facial artery musculomucosal flap, can acquire equivalent or even superior outcome to free flaps in certain cases. Technological modification of some traditional pedicled flaps, e.g., nasolabial flap, pectoralis major myocutaneous flap, latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flap, temporalis myofascial flap, and temporoparietal fascial flap, can further broaden their indications. These traditional flaps still occupy an irreplaceable role, especially in patients with poor condition and institution with immature microsurgical techniques.

Conclusion

The pedicled flaps still plays an important role in head and neck reconstruction after tumor resection. In certain cases, they demonstrate some advantages over free flaps, e.g., more convenient harvest, more rapid recovery, less expenditure, and better functional and aesthetic effect.