Archives of Craniofacial Surgery (대한두개안면성형외과학회지)

Korean Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (대한두개안면성형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Unplanned change from double free flap to a chimeric anterolateral thigh flap in recurrent laryngeal cancer

  • Received : 2019.09.05
  • Accepted : 2019.10.07
  • Published : 2019.12.20
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Reconstruction method choice in recurrent head and neck cancer depends on surgical history, radiation therapy dosage, conditions of recipient vessels, and general patient condition. Furthermore, when defects are multiple or three dimensional in nature, reconstruction and flap choice aimed at rebuilding the functional structure of the head and neck are difficult. We experienced successful reconstruction of recurrent laryngeal cancer requiring reconstruction of esophageal and tracheostomy stroma defects using a chimeric two-skin anterolateral thigh flap with a single pedicle.

Keywords

References

  1. Elfeky AE, Nasr WF, Khazbak A, Abdelrahman MS, Allam ZA, Gareer WY, et al. Hypopharyngeal reconstruction: a comparison of three alternatives. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015;272:3045-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-014-3306-x
  2. Maldonado AA, Silva AK, Humphries LS, Gottlieb LJ. Complex orofacial reconstruction with the intrinsic chimeric flap. J Reconstr Microsurg 2017;33:233-43. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1597656
  3. Yazar S, Wei FC, Chen HC, Cheng MH, Huang WC, Lin CH, et al. Selection of recipient vessels in double free-flap reconstruction of composite head and neck defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;115:1553-61. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000160274.21680.6F
  4. Chen CL, Zenga J, Roland LT, Pipkorn P. Complications of double free flap and free flap combined with locoregional flap in head and neck reconstruction: a systematic review. Head Neck 2018;40:632-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.25005
  5. Nagel TH, Hayden RE. Advantages and limitations of free and pedicled flaps in reconstruction of pharyngoesophageal defects. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;22:407-13. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0000000000000081
  6. Richmon JD, Brumund KT. Reconstruction of the hypopharynx: current trends. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;15:208-12. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0b013e32825b0852
  7. Blackwell KE, Buchbinder D, Biller HF, Urken ML. Reconstruction of massive defects in the head and neck: the role of simultaneous distant and regional flaps. Head Neck 1997;19:620-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0347(199710)19:7<620::AID-HED10>3.0.CO;2-6
  8. Koshima I. A new classification of free combined or connected tissue transfers: introduction to the concept of bridge, siamese, chimeric, mosaic, and chain-circle flaps. Acta Med Okayama 2001;55:329-32.
  9. Boyd JB, Mulholland RS, Davidson J, Gullane PJ, Rotstein LE, Brown DH, et al. The free flap and plate in oromandibular reconstruction: long-term review and indications. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995;95:1018-28. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199505000-00010
  10. Hallock GG. Further clarification of the nomenclature for compound flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;117:151e-60e. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000219178.20541.7f
  11. Hsieh TY, Bewley A. Use of multiple free flaps in head and neck reconstruction. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019;27:392-400. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0000000000000574
  12. Bianchi B, Ferri A, Ferrari S, Copelli C, Poli T, Sesenna E. Free and locoregional flap associations in the reconstruction of extensive head and neck defects. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;37:723-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2008.05.004