Microsurgical reconstruction of the isolated columellar defect with a prelaminated radial forearm free flap. A case report and a review of the literature

Maruccia, Michele; Nacchiero, Eleonora; Giudice, Giuseppe

doi:10.1002/micr.30472

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(36 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 19 studies was included in this systematic review, as showed by the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1 ) (Alves et al, 2020 ; Chiarini et al, 2002 ; Collar & Byrne, 2013 ; Colletti et al, 2012 ; Jehn et al, 2019 ; Kilinc & Aytekin, 2014 ; Kim et al, 2013 ; Lauer et al, 2001 ; Maruccia et al, 2020 ; Nehrer‐Tairych et al, 2002 ; Poeschl et al, 2003 ; Rath et al, 1999 ; Sadigh & Jeng, 2015 ; Schlenz et al, 2001 ; Teng et al, 2005 ; Upton et al, 1994 ; Wolff et al, 1996 ; Ziegler & Oyer, 2021 ). Seven out of the selected 19 articles were case reports (Alves et al, 2020 ; Collar & Byrne, 2013 ; De Santis et al, 2020 ; Maruccia et al, 2020 ; Sadigh & Jeng, 2015 ; Teng et al, 2005 ; Ziegler & Oyer, 2021 ), while the remaining 12 articles were case series (with five out of them including less than five cases) (Chiarini et al, 2002 ; Colletti et al, 2012 ; Jehn et al, 2019 ; Kilinc & Aytekin, 2014 ; Kim et al, 2013 ; Lauer et al, 2001 ; Nehrer‐Tairych et al, 2002 ; Poeschl et al, 2003 ; Rath et al, 1999 ; Schlenz et al, 2001 ; Upton et al, 1994 ; Wolff et al, 1996 ). The whole study population was represented by 102 patients (63 males, 30 females, 9 not specified) undergoing reconstruction of an anatomical defect secondary to oncological ablative surgery with a prelaminated flap, over the last 27 years (1994–2021).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides the oral cavity, significant conclusions about the advantages and limitations of the reconstruction of other anatomical sites (e.g., tracheal, nasal and auricular defect) by prelaminated flaps cannot be drawn. Overall, the short‐term results of prelaminated flaps in these areas have been reported as positive (Alves et al, 2020 ; Maruccia et al, 2020 ; Teng et al, 2005 ; Upton et al, 1994 ; Ziegler & Oyer, 2021 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prelaminated flaps in head and neck cancer reconstructive surgery: A systematic review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Prelamination is a reconstructive technique providing fasciomucosal or composite flaps with low donor-site morbidity. We conducted a systematic review of retrospective studies to assess the application of prelaminated flaps in reconstructive surgery of head and neck cancer patients, and to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of this technique. Methods: This systematic review adhered to the recommendations of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) 2009 guidelines. A computerized MEDLINE search was performed using the PubMed service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (www.pubmed.org) and Scopus database (www. scopus.com), running the following search string: "prelamination OR prelaminated AND flap." Two authors screened the articles, then selected and extracted data on malignancies characteristics, reconstructive techniques, outcomes and complications.Results: A total of 19 articles were selected and reviewed from 128 identified. Seven of 19 articles were case reports, 12 articles were case series. One-hundred-two patients underwent reconstructive treatment by prelamination technique using a wide variety of flaps (92 free, 10 pedicled). The sites of reconstruction were oral cavity (66 floor of the mouth, 3 retromolar trigone, 6 hard palate, 4 cheek, 4 tongue), 8 facial skin (5 of them sited on the nose), 4 oropharyngeal defects, 1 laryngotracheal region. No case of total flap loss was reported. Partial flap loss or shrinkage requiring minor surgical revisions was observed in 18 patients (17.6%). Primary closure of the donor site was achieved in 97 cases (97%) and 3 (3%) required revision surgery of the donor site. Conclusion:Prelamination is an effective and versatile technique, with low donor-site morbidity. Further studies would be needed to investigate the impact on the patient's oncologic outcome. More comparative studies with standard reconstructive techniques are essential to understand when it is worth performing this sophisticated procedure.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prelaminated flaps in head and neck cancer reconstructive surgery: A systematic review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alternatively, a vascularized bone graft could prelaminate the RFF; however, the bulk would compromise cosmesis 41 . Nasal breathing, tip projection, and reconstruction of full-thickness defects can be achieved with a prelaminated RFF with a cartilage graft from the fifth rib 42 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…41 Nasal breathing, tip projection, and reconstruction of full-thickness defects can be achieved with a prelaminated RFF with a cartilage graft from the fifth rib. 42 Free UFF Hsiao et al 11 investigated the role of the UFF in nasal reconstruction. A customized foil template resembling the nasal defect is used to mark the flap on the volar aspect of the forearm.…”

Section: Rff Prelaminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microsurgical Techniques and Postoperative Outcomes After Total and Subtotal Nasal Reconstruction

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

“…On other hand, Kitamura et al illustrated that the combined use of labia minora peripheral skin graft and an innervated free radial forearm flap could be an option for the reconstruction of extensive defects in the upper lip [18]. Moreover, Maruccia et al suggested that a prelaminated radial forearm free flap could be a great reconstructive choice in large defects of the columella [19]. Lin et al study also showed that a barrel-shaped design free forearm flap exhibited better results than a rectangular design for lower lip reconstruction based on social contact and function [10].…”

Section: Surgical Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radial Forearm Free Flap for Head and Neck Defect Reconstruction: An Up-to-date Review of the Literature

Fatani¹

2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The radial forearm free flap has emerged as the mainstay of free flaps for oral cavity soft tissue reconstructions because of its versatility and ability to be used in the reconstruction of large and mediumsized defects. This flap is commonly used to restore head and neck defects, including full-thickness lip and oral cavity defects. This flap offers the opportunity to cover severe defects of the facial region due to its long vascular pedicle and elasticity. In addition to its ease of being harvested, the radial forearm free flap provides a sensate, pliable, and thin skin paddle with a long vascular pedicle. However, it can cause severe morbidity at the donor site, mainly due to exposure of the flexor tendon that results from a failed harvesting of the skin graft, changed sensation in the radial nerve, aesthetic deformity, and reduced range of motion and grip strength. This article aims to review all the up-to-date studies discussing the use of radial forearm free flap in head and neck reconstruction.

show abstract

Microsurgical reconstruction of the isolated columellar defect with a prelaminated radial forearm free flap. A case report and a review of the literature

Cited by 9 publications

References 31 publications

Prelaminated flaps in head and neck cancer reconstructive surgery: A systematic review

Prelaminated flaps in head and neck cancer reconstructive surgery: A systematic review

Microsurgical Techniques and Postoperative Outcomes After Total and Subtotal Nasal Reconstruction

Radial Forearm Free Flap for Head and Neck Defect Reconstruction: An Up-to-date Review of the Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About