A Posteriorly Pedicled Middle Turbinate Mucoperiosteal Flap Resurfacing Nasopharynx after Endoscopic Nasopharyngectomy for Recurrent Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

Chen, Ming Yuan; Hua, Yi; Wan, Xiang; Sun, Rui; Huang, Pei Yu; Xiang, Yan; Guo, Ling; Mo, Hao Yuan; Yang, Yuqiao; Hong, Ming

doi:10.1177/0194599811430918

Cited by 22 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The detailed techniques for administering ENPG and IMRT have been previously reported [5,[13][14][15]. The gross tumor volume (GTV) on the primary site (GTV-nx) and neck (GTVnd) included all disease observed on MRI.…”

Section: Treatment Of Recurrence At Referralmentioning

confidence: 99%

Salvage endoscopic nasopharyngectomy is superior to intensity-modulated radiation therapy for local recurrence of selected T1–T3 nasopharyngeal carcinoma – A case-matched comparison

You

Zou

Hua

et al. 2015

Radiotherapy and Oncology

Self Cite

115

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Treatment Of Recurrence At Referralmentioning

confidence: 99%

Salvage endoscopic nasopharyngectomy is superior to intensity-modulated radiation therapy for local recurrence of selected T1–T3 nasopharyngeal carcinoma – A case-matched comparison

You

Zou

Hua

et al. 2015

Radiotherapy and Oncology

Self Cite

115

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The mucoperiosteal flap is raised posteriorly until the posterior pedicle to avoid injury to the MT artery and then it can be rotated to cover the nasopharyngeal defect. 4 The MTF is safe and minimally invasive for reconstruction after endoscopic nasopharyngectomy; however, the disadvantage of this technique is that it often is not large enough to cover entire nasopharyngeal defect. 4 Patel and his colleagues recently published their experience with secondary flaps in endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 The MTF is safe and minimally invasive for reconstruction after endoscopic nasopharyngectomy; however, the disadvantage of this technique is that it often is not large enough to cover entire nasopharyngeal defect. 4 Patel and his colleagues recently published their experience with secondary flaps in endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery. 5 These flaps are useful in situations when there is invasion of tumor into the nasal septum or when prior surgery or radiation has disrupted its vascular supply.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconstructive Flaps After Salvage Nasopharyngectomy

Thakkar¹,

Grossman²,

Lin³

et al. 2016

Otolaryngol Open J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Importance: The emergence of new technologies for early diagnosis of recurrent nasopharyngeal cancer and new techniques of endoscopic nasopharyngectomy increase the incidence of salvage nasopharyngectomy and pose the question of the ideal flap for reconstruction of this defect. Objectives: A review of the literature to identify the flaps used in nasopharyngeal reconstruction and their advantages and disadvantages, characteristics, and outcomes. Methods: We reviewed the literature available in the English language to identify the various flaps used, their indications and surgical technique, complications and outcomes. Results: Multiple flaps have been used. Local mucosal flaps such as the posterior pedicled middle turbinate mucoperiosteal flap, the posterior pedicled Nasal Septal Flap (NSF) and Floor mucoperiosteum flap (FF), pedicled flaps such as the extended glabellar fascial cutaneous flap, the Haddad-Bassagasteguy flap, the temporoparietal fascial flap and the pericranial flap and free flaps such as the radial forearm and vastus lateralis flap have been described. These flaps are used depending on the specific defect characteristics and tissue available for reconstruction. The advantages and disadvantages of these flaps are discussed. Conclusion: No single flap is ideal for all cases. The choice of flap will have to be tailored according to the patient, the defect created, consistent with oncologic principles, donor site availability and surgeon preference. A working knowledge of available flaps is essential to provide coverage of the skull base to avoid vascular and infectious complications.

show abstract

“…These were taken on every CT scan and used in various combinations to calculate the dimensions for each flap and SSBD. For flaps whose radioanatomy has not been previously analyzed (the ALNW and MTF), the key measurements were based on the operative techniques used to raise them …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The radioanatomy of endonasal flap coverage of skull base defects: A tool for preoperative planning

MacArthur

McGarry

2017

The Laryngoscope

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A Posteriorly Pedicled Middle Turbinate Mucoperiosteal Flap Resurfacing Nasopharynx after Endoscopic Nasopharyngectomy for Recurrent Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

Cited by 22 publications

References 5 publications

Salvage endoscopic nasopharyngectomy is superior to intensity-modulated radiation therapy for local recurrence of selected T1–T3 nasopharyngeal carcinoma – A case-matched comparison

Salvage endoscopic nasopharyngectomy is superior to intensity-modulated radiation therapy for local recurrence of selected T1–T3 nasopharyngeal carcinoma – A case-matched comparison

Reconstructive Flaps After Salvage Nasopharyngectomy

The radioanatomy of endonasal flap coverage of skull base defects: A tool for preoperative planning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About