Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2015
Use of Extended Lateral Upper Arm Free Flap for Tongue Reconstruction After Radical Glossectomy for Tongue Cancer.
Clinical StudyСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Yang Xu-Dong, Zhao Su-Feng, Wang Yu-Xin, Li Wei, Zhang Qian, Hong Xiao-Wei, Wen Jian-Min, Hu Qin-Gang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the extended lateral arm free flap (ELAFF) for repair of partial tongue defects after radical resection of tongue cancer.
METHODS: The study included nine consecutive patients who underwent repair of a partial tongue defect with an ELAFF after radical resection of tongue cancer from November 2010 to December 2013. Lesions were at the tip or margin of the tongue. Details of the reconstructive surgery, donor-site and recipient-site morbidity, and functional and esthetic outcomes were evaluated during a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Patient-reported Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores on a scale of 0 (minimum satisfaction) to 10 (maximum satisfaction) were used to evaluate esthetic outcomes.
RESULTS: All patients were followed up for 12 months (median 24 months). The overall survival rate was 88 % (8/9). The donor site was closed primarily in all patients. The most frequent donor-site morbidity was a broad scar. Poor functional outcomes were associated with postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy. The shape and function of the reconstructed tongue were satisfactory. VAS scores (mean ± SD) for patient satisfaction with recipient-site and donor-site esthetics were 6.92 ± 1.70 and 7.33 ± 2.01, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The ELAFF is a safe and effective option for repair of partial tongue defects after radical resection of tongue cancer.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
METHODS: The study included nine consecutive patients who underwent repair of a partial tongue defect with an ELAFF after radical resection of tongue cancer from November 2010 to December 2013. Lesions were at the tip or margin of the tongue. Details of the reconstructive surgery, donor-site and recipient-site morbidity, and functional and esthetic outcomes were evaluated during a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Patient-reported Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores on a scale of 0 (minimum satisfaction) to 10 (maximum satisfaction) were used to evaluate esthetic outcomes.
RESULTS: All patients were followed up for 12 months (median 24 months). The overall survival rate was 88 % (8/9). The donor site was closed primarily in all patients. The most frequent donor-site morbidity was a broad scar. Poor functional outcomes were associated with postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy. The shape and function of the reconstructed tongue were satisfactory. VAS scores (mean ± SD) for patient satisfaction with recipient-site and donor-site esthetics were 6.92 ± 1.70 and 7.33 ± 2.01, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The ELAFF is a safe and effective option for repair of partial tongue defects after radical resection of tongue cancer.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .