Journal of reconstructive microsurgery · 2020
A Head-to-Head Comparison of the Medial Sural Artery Perforator versus Radial Forearm Flap for Tongue Reconstruction.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Ng Marcus J M, Goh Cindy S L, Tan Ngian Chye, Song David H, Ooi Adrian S H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: For tongue reconstruction, the radial forearm flap (RFF) is commonly used. In the last decade, the medial sural artery perforator (MSAP) flap has been successfully used with reportedly superior donor-site outcomes. Our study is the first to compare the RFF and MSAP for reconstruction of partial glossectomy defects (<50% of tongue).
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 20 patients with partial glossectomy defects reconstructed at a tertiary referral center. Patient demographics, perioperative data, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Objective measures of speech, swallowing, and subjective patient satisfaction with their donor site were recorded.
RESULTS: Ten RFF and MSAP were each used, with a mean partial glossectomy defect size of 40.5 and 43.5%, respectively. The MSAP was significantly thicker (7.8 vs. 4.3 mm, p < 0.05) with a longer harvest time (122.5 vs. 75.0 minutes, p < 0.05). There were no cases of free flap failure. Donor-site healing times were comparable, but the MSAP group experienced significantly less donor-site complications (n = 1 vs. n = 7, p < 0.05). Functional outcomes were comparable with 13 patients achieving normal speech and diet after 3 months (MSAP = 6 vs. RFF = 7, p = 1.00). All patients were satisfied with their donor-site outcome with the MSAP group having a marginally higher score.
CONCLUSION: Both flaps are good options for partial glossectomy reconstruction. Though more challenging to harvest, the MSAP gives comparable functional results and has become our first reconstructive option given its superior donor-site outcomes.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 20 patients with partial glossectomy defects reconstructed at a tertiary referral center. Patient demographics, perioperative data, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Objective measures of speech, swallowing, and subjective patient satisfaction with their donor site were recorded.
RESULTS: Ten RFF and MSAP were each used, with a mean partial glossectomy defect size of 40.5 and 43.5%, respectively. The MSAP was significantly thicker (7.8 vs. 4.3 mm, p < 0.05) with a longer harvest time (122.5 vs. 75.0 minutes, p < 0.05). There were no cases of free flap failure. Donor-site healing times were comparable, but the MSAP group experienced significantly less donor-site complications (n = 1 vs. n = 7, p < 0.05). Functional outcomes were comparable with 13 patients achieving normal speech and diet after 3 months (MSAP = 6 vs. RFF = 7, p = 1.00). All patients were satisfied with their donor-site outcome with the MSAP group having a marginally higher score.
CONCLUSION: Both flaps are good options for partial glossectomy reconstruction. Though more challenging to harvest, the MSAP gives comparable functional results and has become our first reconstructive option given its superior donor-site outcomes.