Kozin Elliott D, Sethi Rosh K, Herr Marc, Shrime Mark G, Rocco James W, Lin Derrick, Deschler Daniel G, Emerick Kevin S
Department of Otology and Laryngology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Department of Otology and Laryngology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016 Jan;154(1):66-72. doi: 10.1177/0194599815607345. Epub 2015 Oct 14.
Outcomes of the supraclavicular artery island flap (SCAIF) have not been extensively studied in comparison with free tissue transfer (FTT) flaps for head and neck reconstruction. We hypothesize that the pedicled SCAIF has decreased operating room time, length of stay, time to wound healing of recipient site, complications, and hospital charges as compared with FTT.
Case series with chart review.
Tertiary care teaching hospital.
Medical records were reviewed for patients who underwent SCAIF (n = 45) or FTT (n = 28) reconstruction between 2011 and 2013.
Total operating room time was significantly lower for the SCAIF group vs the FTT group (6.7 vs 8.1 hours, P = .002). Procedural time was 5.7 hours for the SCAIF group, as compared with 7.2 hours for FTT group (P = .0015). Mean area for SCAIF donor site was 63.89 cm(2) vs 81.8 cm(2) for the radial forearm free flap group (P = .015). There was no significant difference in mean length of stay between SCAIF (8.8 days) and FTT (11 days, P = .12). Mean length of time to wound healing of the recipient site was similar in the SCAIF group vs the FTT group (17.3 vs 22.1 days, P = .071). Ratio of total hospital charges for SCAIF were 32% lower than that of FTT (P = .0001).
This is among the first studies to compare SCAIF with FTT in a large cohort analysis. We find decreased operating room times for SCAIF vs FTT, with similar length of stay and wound healing. Other outcomes between SCAIF and FTT were also comparable.
与用于头颈部重建的游离组织移植（FTT）皮瓣相比，锁骨下动脉岛状皮瓣（SCAIF）的效果尚未得到广泛研究。我们假设，与FTT相比，带蒂SCAIF可减少手术时间、住院时间、受区伤口愈合时间、并发症及住院费用。
病例系列研究并进行图表回顾。
三级护理教学医院。
回顾2011年至2013年间接受SCAIF（n = 45）或FTT（n = 28）重建手术患者的病历。
SCAIF组的总手术时间显著低于FTT组（6.7小时对8.1小时，P = 0.002）。SCAIF组的手术操作时间为5.7小时，而FTT组为7.2小时（P = 0.0015）。SCAIF供区的平均面积为63.89平方厘米，而桡侧前臂游离皮瓣组为81.8平方厘米（P = 0.015）。SCAIF组（8.8天）和FTT组（11天）的平均住院时间无显著差异（P = 0.12）。SCAIF组与FTT组受区伤口愈合的平均时间相似（17.3天对22.1天，P = 0.071）。SCAIF的总住院费用比FTT低32%（P = 0.0001）。
这是在大型队列分析中比较SCAIF与FTT的首批研究之一。我们发现SCAIF与FTT相比手术时间减少，住院时间和伤口愈合情况相似。SCAIF和FTT的其他结果也具有可比性。
