Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2022
Two-Layer Palatal Reconstruction Reduces Postoperative Intraoral Complications in Head and Neck Surgery.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание 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.
Nemoto Hitoshi, Cheong David Chon-Fok, Hung Shao-Yu, Tsao Chung-Kan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although microvascular free flaps are commonly performed and have high success rates, postoperative oronasal fistulas or infections do occur. The authors hypothesized that a two-layer closure is effective for prevention of intraoral complications.
METHODS: Patients who underwent palatal reconstruction with a microvascular free flap were evaluated retrospectively. The cases were divided into two groups (palatal reconstruction with or without a two-layer closure). A two-layer closure involves unilateral reconstruction with a free flap, then reconstruction of the nasal lining with a local flap or folding free flap. The postoperative complication rates between these two groups were compared.
RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five cases were evaluated. A two-layer closure was performed in 65 cases (41.9 percent). The incidence of infections, dehiscence of the recipient site, and oronasal fistula were significantly higher in the single-layer closure group than in the two-layer closure group [10.0 percent versus 0 percent (p = 0.011); 15.6 percent versus 4.6 percent (p = 0.036); and 17.8 percent versus 4.6 percent (p = 0.013), respectively].
CONCLUSIONS: A two-layer closure in palatal reconstruction was shown to reduce the rate of infection, intraoral wound dehiscence, and oronasal fistula in the current study. A two-layer closure provides greater support and stability and reduces the risk of failure in reconstruction of the palate with a microvascular free flap.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
METHODS: Patients who underwent palatal reconstruction with a microvascular free flap were evaluated retrospectively. The cases were divided into two groups (palatal reconstruction with or without a two-layer closure). A two-layer closure involves unilateral reconstruction with a free flap, then reconstruction of the nasal lining with a local flap or folding free flap. The postoperative complication rates between these two groups were compared.
RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five cases were evaluated. A two-layer closure was performed in 65 cases (41.9 percent). The incidence of infections, dehiscence of the recipient site, and oronasal fistula were significantly higher in the single-layer closure group than in the two-layer closure group [10.0 percent versus 0 percent (p = 0.011); 15.6 percent versus 4.6 percent (p = 0.036); and 17.8 percent versus 4.6 percent (p = 0.013), respectively].
CONCLUSIONS: A two-layer closure in palatal reconstruction was shown to reduce the rate of infection, intraoral wound dehiscence, and oronasal fistula in the current study. A two-layer closure provides greater support and stability and reduces the risk of failure in reconstruction of the palate with a microvascular free flap.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.