Paydarfar Joseph A, Patel Urjeet A
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011 Jan;137(1):82-7. doi: 10.1001/archoto.2010.204.
To compare intraoperative, postoperative, and functional results of submental island pedicled flap (SIPF) against radial forearm free flap (RFFF) reconstruction for tongue and floor-of-mouth reconstruction.
Multi-institutional retrospective review.
Academic tertiary referral center.
Consecutive patients from February 2003 to December 2009 undergoing resection of oral tongue or floor of mouth followed by reconstruction with SIPF or RFFF.
Two groups: SIPF vs RFFF.
Duration of operation, hospital stay, surgical complications, and speech and swallowing function.
The study included 60 patients, 27 with SIPF reconstruction and 33 with RFFF reconstruction. Sex, age, and TNM stage were similar for both groups. Mean flap size was smaller for SIPF (36 cm²) than for RFFF (50 cm²) (P < .001). Patients undergoing SIPF reconstruction had shorter operations (mean, 8 hours 44 minutes vs 13 hours 00 minutes; P < .001) and shorter hospitalization (mean, 10.6 days vs 14.0 days; P < .008) compared with patients who underwent RFFF. Donor site, flap-related, and other surgical complications were comparable between groups, as was speech and swallowing function.
Reconstruction of oral cavity defects with the SIPF results in shorter operative time and hospitalization without compromising functional outcomes. The SIPF may be a preferable option in reconstruction of oral cavity defects less than 40 cm².
比较颏下岛状带蒂皮瓣(SIPF)与桡侧前臂游离皮瓣(RFFF)用于舌及口底重建的术中、术后及功能结果。
多机构回顾性研究。
学术性三级转诊中心。
2003年2月至2009年12月连续收治的行口腔舌部或口底切除术后采用SIPF或RFFF重建的患者。
两组:SIPF组与RFFF组。
手术时间、住院时间、手术并发症以及言语和吞咽功能。
该研究纳入60例患者,其中27例行SIPF重建,33例行RFFF重建。两组患者的性别、年龄及TNM分期相似。SIPF的平均皮瓣面积(36 cm²)小于RFFF(50 cm²)(P <.001)。与接受RFFF重建的患者相比,接受SIPF重建的患者手术时间更短(平均8小时44分钟对13小时00分钟;P <.001),住院时间更短(平均10.6天对14.0天;P <.008)。两组间供区、皮瓣相关及其他手术并发症以及言语和吞咽功能相当。
采用SIPF重建口腔缺损可缩短手术时间和住院时间,且不影响功能结果。对于小于40 cm²的口腔缺损重建,SIPF可能是更优选择。