Accelerated takedown of the paramedian forehead flap at 1 week: Indications, technique, and improving patient quality of life

Somoano, Brian; Kampp, Jeremy T.; Gladstone, Hayes B.

doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2011.01.019

Cited by 36 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…During this period, patient experience some discomfort such partial obstruction of vision or an inability to use prescribed eye glasses due to bulging of the flap trunk. [21] To shorten this period, different technique both in animal models and human subjects have been suggested and these include ischemic preconditioning, use of hyberbaric oxygen, perfusion fluorometry, laser Doppler flowmetry and near-infrared laser angiography. [22][23][24][25][26] Early division of forehead flaps as at 4-6 days has been documented with minimal complications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The forehead flap: a valuable option in resource depleted environment

Agbara¹,

Fomete²,

Obiadazie³

et al. 2016

PAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: Reconstruction of orofacial soft tissue defect is often challenging and this is more difficult in resource challenged environment. This retrospective study highlights our experience with the use of forehead flap to overcome some of the challenges of orofacial reconstruction in a resource depleted environment. Methods: A 23-year retrospective analysis of all patients who had orofacial defect reconstruction using forehead flap in our department was undertaken. Information was sourced from patient's case notes and operating theatre records. Data was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and Microsoft Excel 2007 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA). Results: A total of 43 patients were managed within the period reviewed and consisted of 31 (72.1%) males and 12 (27.9%) females. Trauma 24 (55.8%) accounted for most defect and the lip was the commonest site of defect. Complete forehead flap was used in 31 (72.1%) of cases and when timing of defect repair is considered, delayed reconstruction was the preferred method. Postoperative complications was observed in 8 (18.6%) patients and consisted of failed flap in 2 (25.0%) patients, tumor recurrence in reconstructed site in 2 (25.0%) patients and tumor occurrence in forehead flap donor site in 1 (12.5%) patient. Conclusion: The forehead flap remains a reliable option in orofacial soft tissue defect reconstruction. It is easy to raise and can provide coverage for wide defects as far as the paramandibular and submandibular regions. Moreover, it does not require patient repositioning.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it is recommended that early flap division should not be undertaken in active smokers and in patients with bleeding disorders to avoid complications. [21,27] Documented disadvantages of the forehead flap include facial disfiguring and bulkiness of flap. Complications noted in this study are shown in Table 3.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The forehead flap: a valuable option in resource depleted environment

Agbara¹,

Fomete²,

Obiadazie³

et al. 2016

PAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Due to the rich random pattern of vascularity of angular artery perforators, generous donor tissue site, and opportunity for convenient concealment of the incision site within local facial folds, the MLIF has proven to be a reliable option for the reconstruction of distal nasal defects (Figure 4) [19] . Traditionally, however, when the defect involves the alar margin and lining of the lower nose, the MLIF has been eschewed in favor of the PMFF or used in conjunction with an intranasal lining flap to repair the lining portion of the defect [8] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of folded melolabial interpolation flaps to repair full thickness distal nasal defects: A review of technique and results

Walen

Maher

2016

J Surg Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The nose is a common site for skin cancer and there are several surgical options available for reconstruction after excision. Traditional surgical teaching suggests that in the case of a partial full thickness defect involving the distal nose or ala, a paramedian forehead flap (PMFF) or an intranasal lining flap with free cartilage graft and additional cutaneous flap should be performed. However, each of these options comes with unique disadvantages. The incision and pedicle required for the PMFF can be unsightly and functionally limiting, while the intranasal lining flap is technically challenging and can obstruct the nostril. Herein, we review our experience with a two-stage folded-over melolabial interpolation flap (MLIF) to repair partial full thickness defects of the distal nose and ala in order to recreate the cutaneous covering, nasal rim, and inner mucosal lining. Keywords: MLIF; melolabial interpolation flap; flap; nasal reconstructionCitation: Maher E, Walen S, Maher I. The use of folded melolabial interpolation flaps to repair alar full thickness distal nasal defects: A review of technique and results.

show abstract

“…One paper does report pedicle removal as early as 1 week after the initial stage. However, in this paper, a second procedure is performed 3 weeks following the first procedure to restore contour [19]. Division and inset is of paramount importance to the final esthetic outcome of the repair.…”

Section: Paramedian Forehead Flapmentioning

confidence: 99%