Pectoralis major myofascial flap: a valuable tool in contemporary head and neck reconstruction.

BACKGROUND

The pectoralis major myofascial (PMMF) unit is rapidly mobilized, reliable, and extremely useful in a number of clinical situations calling for vascularized soft-tissue coverage in the head and neck. Although free-tissue transfer has emerged as the preferred method of reconstruction for a large variety of defects in the head and neck, the pectoralis major muscle should be considered when vascularized soft-tissue coverage is required in this area.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of 24 PMMF flaps performed at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics between January 1, 1991, and May 1, 1996, was undertaken. Outcomes were evaluated relative to accomplishing the established preoperative surgical goals.

RESULTS

Utilization of the PMMF flap was grouped according to four primary indications: (1) protection of threatened great vessels or free flap vascular pedicles in situations of wound breakdown due to fistula or infection (7 cases); (2) vascularized soft-tissue coverage of great vessels or free-flap vascular pedicles and prevention of potential wound breakdown in surgical defects in which compromised healing was anticipated (7 cases); (3) closure of small pharyngeal defects (2 cases); or (4) vascularized coverage of the mandible following debridement for osteoradionecrosis (8 cases). The PMMF flap was 100% successful when the surgical goal was to protect exposed vascular structures and promote wound healing in the presence of fistula or infection. The PMMF flap was 100% successful in the protection of vascular structures and prevention of wound breakdown in cases where compromised wound healing was anticipated. The PMMF flap provided closure, and a vascularized surface for mucosalization, when used to primarily reconstruct small pharyngeal defects. The PMMF flap provided definitive closure in 5 of 8 (62.5%) cases of osteoradionecrosis of the mandible when it was used to invest the remaining mandibular bone. Three of 8 cases (37.5%) required further surgical management and were considered failures. An acceptable cosmetic outcome was obtained in women undergoing this procedure by using an inframammary incision. The preoperative goal of the PMMF flap procedure was met in 21 of 24 (87.5%) cases. There was a major complication rate of 12.5% as well as a minor complication rate of 12.5%.

CONCLUSION

In cases requiring the protection of vital vascular structures from infection, salivary secretions or skin flap breakdown, the PMMF flap should be considered. The PMMF flap is an excellent reconstructive option in selected clinical situations, where vascularized soft-tissue coverage is required in the head and neck.