Annals of surgical oncology · 2013
Peroneal flap in hypopharyngeal reconstruction.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Lin Ying-Sheng, Liu Wen-Chung, Chen Lee-Wei, Yang Kuo-Chung
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Hypopharyngeal reconstruction is a complex and challenging task because the goal of the reconstruction is not only defect filling but also restoring functions such as swallowing and speech. In this article, we present a novel approach of using peroneal flaps in hypopharyngeal reconstructions.
METHODS: Between 1997 and 2011, 14 peroneal flaps were used to reconstruct the hypopharynx of 13 patients. We retrospectively reviewed all the medical records from those surgeries, searching for either short-term postoperative complications or long-term follow-up morbidity, and researched relevant articles for comparisons with other types of flaps.
RESULTS: Of the 14 peroneal flaps, five were applied in tubed form for a circumferential defect. The remaining nine peroneal flaps were applied in the form of a patch for a noncircumferential defect. None of the 14 flaps underwent flap loss. The rates of stenosis and fistula formation were 7.1 and 14.3 %, respectively. The average postoperative hospital stay was 20.2 days. Of 13 patients, nine were able to resume at least a soft diet after the reconstruction. Only one patient remained on nasogastric feeding through the 6-month follow-up period. None of the patients experienced significant complications.
CONCLUSIONS: A peroneal flap reconstruction has comparable postoperative complications and donor site morbidity and should be considered as a viable option for hypopharyngeal reconstruction.
METHODS: Between 1997 and 2011, 14 peroneal flaps were used to reconstruct the hypopharynx of 13 patients. We retrospectively reviewed all the medical records from those surgeries, searching for either short-term postoperative complications or long-term follow-up morbidity, and researched relevant articles for comparisons with other types of flaps.
RESULTS: Of the 14 peroneal flaps, five were applied in tubed form for a circumferential defect. The remaining nine peroneal flaps were applied in the form of a patch for a noncircumferential defect. None of the 14 flaps underwent flap loss. The rates of stenosis and fistula formation were 7.1 and 14.3 %, respectively. The average postoperative hospital stay was 20.2 days. Of 13 patients, nine were able to resume at least a soft diet after the reconstruction. Only one patient remained on nasogastric feeding through the 6-month follow-up period. None of the patients experienced significant complications.
CONCLUSIONS: A peroneal flap reconstruction has comparable postoperative complications and donor site morbidity and should be considered as a viable option for hypopharyngeal reconstruction.