Mahieu R, Colletti G, Bonomo P, Parrinello G, Iavarone A, Dolivet G, Livi L, Deganello A
Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, University of Florence, Italy.
University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands.
Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2016 Dec;36(6):459-468. doi: 10.14639/0392-100X-1153.
Nowadays, the transposition of microvascular free flaps is the most popular method for management of head and neck defects. However, not all patients are suitable candidates for free flap reconstruction. In addition, not every defect requires a free flap transfer to achieve good functional results. The aim of this study was to assess whether pedicled flap reconstruction of head and neck defects is inferior to microvascular free flap reconstruction in terms of complications, functionality and prognosis. The records of consecutive patients who underwent free flap or pedicled flap reconstruction after head and neck cancer ablation from 2006 to 2015, from a single surgeon, in the AOUC Hospital, Florence Italy were analysed. A total of 93 patients, the majority with oral cancer (n = 59), were included, of which 64 were pedicled flap reconstructions (69%). The results showed no significant differences in terms of functional outcome, flap necrosis and complications in each type of reconstruction. Multivariate regression analysis of flap necrosis and functional impairments showed no associated factors. Multivariate regression analysis of complicated flap healing showed that only comorbidities remained an explaining factor (p = 0.019). Survival analysis and proportional hazard regression analysis regarding cancer relapse or distant metastasis, showed no significant differences in prognosis of patients concerning both types of reconstruction. In this retrospective, non-randomised study cohort, pedicled flaps were not significantly inferior to free flaps for reconstruction of head and neck defects, considering functionality, complications and prognosis.
如今,微血管游离皮瓣转移是治疗头颈部缺损最常用的方法。然而,并非所有患者都适合进行游离皮瓣重建。此外,并非每个缺损都需要进行游离皮瓣转移才能获得良好的功能效果。本研究的目的是评估头颈部缺损的带蒂皮瓣重建在并发症、功能和预后方面是否劣于微血管游离皮瓣重建。对2006年至2015年在意大利佛罗伦萨AOUC医院由单一外科医生进行头颈部癌症切除术后接受游离皮瓣或带蒂皮瓣重建的连续患者的记录进行了分析。共纳入93例患者,大多数为口腔癌患者(n = 59),其中64例为带蒂皮瓣重建(69%)。结果显示,每种重建类型在功能结局、皮瓣坏死和并发症方面均无显著差异。对皮瓣坏死和功能障碍的多因素回归分析显示无相关因素。对复杂皮瓣愈合的多因素回归分析表明,只有合并症仍然是一个解释因素(p = 0.019)。关于癌症复发或远处转移的生存分析和比例风险回归分析显示,两种重建类型患者的预后无显著差异。在这个回顾性、非随机研究队列中,考虑到功能、并发症和预后,带蒂皮瓣在头颈部缺损重建方面并不显著劣于游离皮瓣。