Total Nasal Reconstruction With Prefabricated and Prelaminated Free Flap

A Contemporary Review of the Role of Facial Prostheses in Complex Facial Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Maxillofacial prostheses provide effective rehabilitation of complex facial defects as alternatives to surgical reconstruction. Although facial prostheses provide aesthetically pleasing reconstructions, multiple barriers exist that prevent their routine clinical use. The accessibility of facial prostheses is limited by the scarce supply of maxillofacial prosthodontists, significant time commitment and number of clinic appointments required of patients during prosthesis fabrication, short lifespan of prostheses, and limited outcomes data.

METHODS

A literature review was completed using PubMed and Embase databases, with search phrases including face and maxillofacial prostheses. Patient cases are included to illustrate the use of facial prostheses to reconstruct complex facial defects.

RESULTS

The clinical use of facial prostheses requires a multidisciplinary team including a reconstructive surgeon, a maxillofacial prosthodontist, and an anaplastologist, if available, to provide patients with aesthetically appropriate facial prostheses. Developing technology including computer-aided design and three-dimensional printing may improve the availability of facial prostheses by eliminating multiple steps during prosthesis fabrication, ultimately decreasing the time required to fabricate a prosthesis. In addition, enhanced materials may improve prosthesis durability. Long-term outcomes data using validated measures is needed to support the continued use of facial prostheses.

CONCLUSIONS

Facial prostheses can be used to reconstruct complex facial defects, and bone-anchored prostheses are associated with high patient satisfaction. Multiple barriers prevent prostheses from being used for facial reconstruction. New technologies to assist the design and fabrication of prostheses, and cost reduction measures, may allow their use in the appropriately selected patient.

Microsurgical Techniques and Postoperative Outcomes After Total and Subtotal Nasal Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Multiple microsurgical techniques for nasal reconstruction have been described in the literature. Given the gaps in the literature regarding evidence-based reviews for total and subtotal nasal reconstruction using microsurgical techniques, the purpose of this study was to provide a thorough presentation of the most popular microvascular techniques and their outcomes (functional and aesthetic) for total or subtotal nasal defects.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library on free flap techniques for restoration of nasectomy defects. The keywords were "nasal reconstruction," "nose," "nasectomy," "rhinectomy," and "microvascular." Inclusion criteria for analysis in the study were the largest clinical case series published in English within the past 15 years with more than 8 patients.Studies were analyzed for patient demographics, etiology of nasal loss, surgical approaches to reconstruction, outcomes, and complications. The current study was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 302 results. Eleven articles with a total of 232 patients met the inclusion criteria. The radial (n = 85) and ulnar forearm flaps (n = 20), auricular helical rim (n = 87), and anterolateral thigh flap (n = 30) were the most commonly reported free flaps in nasal reconstruction. The main etiologic factors were malignancy and trauma. The most common complication was partial flap necrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The auricular helical and radial forearm flaps represent the most used free flaps for total and/or subtotal nasal defects with satisfactory patient outcomes.

Prelaminated Temporoparietal Osteofascial Flap: A Novel Nasal Reconstruction Technique

Nasal reconstruction can be a difficult task to perform. It is a challenge when the defect to be reconstructed is extensive and involves the entire thickness of the nose. The difficulty is further increased when a recurrent tumor is removed, where other flaps were previously used to reconstruct the initial defect. A therapeutic option is microsurgical reconstruction; however, sometimes this cannot be performed. Furthermore, free flaps such as the anterolateral thigh or the antebrachialis radial tend to be very thick for the integuments of the face. Therefore, it is important to think of another reconstructive option to solve this problem. We present a case of nasal reconstruction with a prelaminated temporoparietal osteofascial flap, after full-thickness excision for recurrent carcinoma.

Resurgence of regional flaps for head and neck reconstruction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The strain on healthcare resources in light of the COVID-19 pandemic has forced many head and neck surgeons to explore reconstructive options that may decrease length of stay. Here, we review three common and versatile regional flaps used in head and neck reconstruction that are comparable alternatives to free tissue transfer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Initial anatomic descriptions of the facial artery musculocutaneous (FAMM) flap, the supraclavicular artery island flap and the submental artery island flap were published decades ago. Since then, many have proposed modifications to these descriptions to improve technical ease and patient outcomes. Benefits of regional flaps include ease of harvest, comparable outcomes to free tissue microvascular flaps, shorter operative time and hospital length of stay. Drawbacks to regional flaps include limitations to size and reach, partial necrosis, wound dehiscence and surgeon experience. The integrity of the vascular pedicle is also contingent upon vessel preservation during the cancer ablation.

SUMMARY

Although a resurgence of regional flaps began well before the COVID-19 pandemic, many institutions began looking for alternatives to free flap reconstruction to conserve healthcare resources and minimize patient hospitalization time in the past year. There has been a revival of regional flaps such as the FAMM, supraclavicular and submental flaps that are valuable reconstructive options for many defects of the head and neck.