Suppr超能文献

复合性鼻缺损的双额瓣重建术。

Double forehead flap reconstruction of composite nasal defects.

作者信息

Zelken Jonathan A, Chang Chun-Shin, Reddy Sashank K, Hsiao Yen-Chang

机构信息

Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taipei, Taiwan; Private Practice, Newport Beach, CA, USA.

Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taipei, Taiwan.

出版信息

J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016 Sep;69(9):1280-4. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2016.05.026. Epub 2016 Jun 3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Composite nasal defects require skin, framework, and lining reconstruction. The forehead flap is an ideal donor for skin coverage because of good color match and excellent donor-site healing. Intranasal flaps and grafts are reserved for lining reconstruction of small defects. Locoregional and free flaps are used for larger lining defects, but these may not be ideal or safe. The authors advocate the double forehead flap for large composite defects of the nose in a subset of patients.

METHODS

Three men and three women aged 55-87 years (average 74.7 years) were treated for composite nasal defects that resulted from cancer (n = 5) and trauma (n = 1). Skin and lining defects were >2 cm in every dimension. Double forehead flaps were raised in stages (n = 1) or simultaneously (n = 5), and nasal reconstruction was performed in two (n = 1) or three stages (n = 5).

RESULTS

Patients were followed for 19.3 months (range 13-24 months). Donor sites of flaps raised in stages healed after 3 months. When flaps were raised together, healing required 5-13 months (average 7.6 months). There were no partial or complete flap losses. None of the patients had infection, hematoma, or nerve injury. Satisfactory aesthetic results were achieved in every case.

CONCLUSION

The authors advocate the double forehead flap for large composite nasal defects in patients who are not suitable candidates for nasolabial flaps and those who may not tolerate free tissue transfer. The advantages of this method must be weighed against the drawbacks, which include prolonged donor-site healing and elimination of the contralateral forehead flap.

摘要

背景与目的

复合性鼻缺损需要进行皮肤、支架和衬里的重建。额部皮瓣因其颜色匹配良好且供区愈合佳,是皮肤覆盖的理想供区。鼻内皮瓣和移植物用于小缺损的衬里重建。局部皮瓣和游离皮瓣用于较大的衬里缺损,但这些可能并非理想或安全的选择。作者主张对一部分患者采用双侧额部皮瓣修复大面积复合性鼻缺损。

方法

对3名男性和3名女性患者(年龄55 - 87岁,平均74.7岁)进行治疗,这些患者的复合性鼻缺损由癌症(n = 5)和外伤(n = 1)导致。每个维度的皮肤和衬里缺损均>2 cm。双侧额部皮瓣分阶段(n = 1)或同时掀起(n = 5),鼻重建分两期(n = 1)或三期(n = 5)进行。

结果

患者随访19.3个月(范围13 - 24个月)。分阶段掀起皮瓣的供区在3个月后愈合。皮瓣同时掀起时,愈合需要5 - 13个月(平均7.6个月)。没有皮瓣部分或完全坏死的情况。所有患者均未发生感染、血肿或神经损伤。每例均获得满意的美学效果。

结论

作者主张对不适合采用鼻唇沟皮瓣且可能无法耐受游离组织移植的患者,采用双侧额部皮瓣修复大面积复合性鼻缺损。该方法的优点必须与缺点相权衡,缺点包括供区愈合时间延长以及对侧额部皮瓣的缺失。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验