Chien Chih-Yen, Hwang Chung-Feng, Chuang Hui-Ching, Jeng Seng-Feng, Su Chih-Ying
Department of Otolaryngology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Kaohsiung 123, Ta-Pei Road, Niao-Song Hsiang, Kaohsiung County 833, Taiwan.
Oral Oncol. 2005 Aug;41(7):694-7. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2005.03.002.
There are a variety of methods to reconstruct the mucosal defect after the ablation of buccal cancer. We used the radial forearm free flap (RFFF), pedicled buccal fat pad flap (PBFPF) or split-thickness skin graft (STSG) to reconstruct the buccal mucosal defect in our series respectively and compared the mouth-open width among these methods. We found there was no significant difference in the change of mouth-open width between the Group STSG and Group PBFPF. However, the negative effect on the mouth opening was significantly less (p<0.05) in Group RFFF when compared with the Group STSG or Group PBFPF. In conclusion, reconstruction with radial forearm free flap for buccal mucosal defect carries more chances to preserve the original mouth-open width than with pedicled buccal fat pad flap or split-thickness skin graft among the selected patients who undergo tumor resection for T2 or T3 buccal cancer.
颊癌切除术后重建黏膜缺损有多种方法。在我们的系列研究中，我们分别使用桡侧前臂游离皮瓣（RFFF）、带蒂颊脂垫瓣（PBFPF）或断层皮片移植（STSG）来重建颊黏膜缺损，并比较了这些方法之间的开口宽度。我们发现STSG组和PBFPF组之间开口宽度的变化没有显著差异。然而，与STSG组或PBFPF组相比，RFFF组对开口的负面影响明显较小（p<0.05）。总之，对于接受T2或T3颊癌肿瘤切除的选定患者，采用桡侧前臂游离皮瓣重建颊黏膜缺损比采用带蒂颊脂垫瓣或断层皮片移植更有可能保留原有的开口宽度。
