Archives of facial plastic surgery · 2001
Reliability of the melolabial flap for alar reconstruction.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lindsey W H
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To review a series of alar reconstruction cases in which the melolabial flap was used.
DESIGN: Case series.
SETTING: University medical center and private practice.
PATIENTS: One hundred five consecutive patients with alar defects, resulting from oncologic resection, in whom melolabial flap reconstruction was suitable.
INTERVENTION: Single-stage melolabial flap reconstruction by a single surgeon (W.H.L.).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Viability of the flap and presence or absence of surgical complications.
RESULTS: There were no complete flap failures. Seven patients had partial necrosis of the distal end of the flap, and 3 of these instances occurred when the flap was rolled back onto itself to reconstruct the nasal vestibule; however, none of the patients required a subsequent operation or notching. Three patients developed hematoma, and 2 of them required a return to the operating room for control of bleeding. Four patients developed superficial infection, and 1 developed cellulitis of the cheek requiring opening of the wound and later revision of the flap. This was the only flap requiring revision. Fifteen patients required 3 or fewer corticosteroid infiltrations postoperatively for flap pin-cushioning or scar hypertrophy.
CONCLUSION: The melolabial flap is a reliable tool in the reconstructive armamentarium of the facial plastic surgeon.
DESIGN: Case series.
SETTING: University medical center and private practice.
PATIENTS: One hundred five consecutive patients with alar defects, resulting from oncologic resection, in whom melolabial flap reconstruction was suitable.
INTERVENTION: Single-stage melolabial flap reconstruction by a single surgeon (W.H.L.).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Viability of the flap and presence or absence of surgical complications.
RESULTS: There were no complete flap failures. Seven patients had partial necrosis of the distal end of the flap, and 3 of these instances occurred when the flap was rolled back onto itself to reconstruct the nasal vestibule; however, none of the patients required a subsequent operation or notching. Three patients developed hematoma, and 2 of them required a return to the operating room for control of bleeding. Four patients developed superficial infection, and 1 developed cellulitis of the cheek requiring opening of the wound and later revision of the flap. This was the only flap requiring revision. Fifteen patients required 3 or fewer corticosteroid infiltrations postoperatively for flap pin-cushioning or scar hypertrophy.
CONCLUSION: The melolabial flap is a reliable tool in the reconstructive armamentarium of the facial plastic surgeon.