Facial plastic surgery & aesthetic medicine · 2025
Low Median Forehead Flap for Nasal Reconstruction: An Effective Modification to the Paramedian Forehead Flap.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание 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.
Shaye David A, Liu Rui Han, Shehan Jennifer, Kim Minjee, Tollefson Travis T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing nasal reconstruction with the paramedian forehead flap (PMFF) can lead to scalp hair transfer and brow distortion. To minimize this, we have adopted the low median forehead flap (LMFF).
OBJECTIVES: To compare the hypothetical flap reach of the LMFF with the PMFF and measure flap viability and hair transfer amongst patients undergoing nasal reconstruction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective chart review of patients undergoing the LMFF collected demographics, flap viability, brow distortion, and hair transfer. Photograph measurements compared the hypothetic flap reach between an LMFF or PMFF design.
RESULTS: Eighty patients (mean age 65 ± 13 [SD] years, 56.3% female) met inclusion after LMFF for nasal defects, mostly from skin cancer resection (93.8%) involving the tip (67.1%) and ala (73.4%); with ≥3 involved subunits (63.8%). Transferred scalp hair (n = 1, 1.3%), and no flap compromise occurred. In photograph analysis, the LMFF showed an 11.6% increase in flap reach as compared to the PMFF (p < 0.0001). Intra-rater and inter-rater variances were nonsignificant.
CONCLUSIONS: The LMFF is a viable modification to the PMFF for nasal reconstruction, especially in patients with short hairline and/or distal nasal tip/alar defects where increased flap reach and minimal hair transfer are desired.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the hypothetical flap reach of the LMFF with the PMFF and measure flap viability and hair transfer amongst patients undergoing nasal reconstruction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective chart review of patients undergoing the LMFF collected demographics, flap viability, brow distortion, and hair transfer. Photograph measurements compared the hypothetic flap reach between an LMFF or PMFF design.
RESULTS: Eighty patients (mean age 65 ± 13 [SD] years, 56.3% female) met inclusion after LMFF for nasal defects, mostly from skin cancer resection (93.8%) involving the tip (67.1%) and ala (73.4%); with ≥3 involved subunits (63.8%). Transferred scalp hair (n = 1, 1.3%), and no flap compromise occurred. In photograph analysis, the LMFF showed an 11.6% increase in flap reach as compared to the PMFF (p < 0.0001). Intra-rater and inter-rater variances were nonsignificant.
CONCLUSIONS: The LMFF is a viable modification to the PMFF for nasal reconstruction, especially in patients with short hairline and/or distal nasal tip/alar defects where increased flap reach and minimal hair transfer are desired.