These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A Retrospective Volume Matched Analysis of the Submental Artery Island Pedicled Flap as Compared to the Forearm Free Flap: Is It a Good Alternative Choice for the Reconstruction of Defects of the Oral Cavity and Oropharynx?
    Author: Aslam-Pervez N, Caldroney SJ, Isaiah A, Lubek JE.
    Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2018 Mar; 76(3):656-663. PubMed ID: 28886357.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: The submental artery island pedicled flap (SMIF) is an underused alternative for reconstruction of head and neck defects after tumor ablation. The purpose of this study was to perform a comparative evaluation of reconstructive outcomes based on surgical site and ablative defect volume in patients who underwent reconstruction with the SMIF versus the forearm free flap (FFF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal defects reconstructed with the SMIF and a cohort of patients with similar volume defects reconstructed with the FFF were compared for oncologic safety and viability of equivalent reconstructive outcomes. All statistical comparisons were assessed by analysis of variance and Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Average age was 61.8 years in the SMIF group versus 57.9 years in the FFF group. The most common defect was located in the tongue, with squamous cell carcinoma being the most common pathology identified. Flap volumes were similar (SMIF, 38.79 cm3; FFF, 39.77 cm3). Significant comparative outcomes identified with SMIF versus FFF reconstruction included shorter anesthesia times (815 vs 1,209 minutes; P < .001), shorter operative times (653 vs 1,031 minutes; P < .001), and less blood loss (223 vs 398 mL; P = .04). Postoperative Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group performance score increased more for the FFF than for the SMIF group (+0.33 vs + 1.25; P = .0019). Recipient site complication rates were lower for the FFF group (0.17 vs 0.42 per patient) but were not statistically relevant. There were equal rates of recurrence at the local surgical site and no differences in speech and swallowing function. Mean follow-up was 15.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to compare the SMIF with the FFF for reconstruction of oral cavity defects based on ablative volume deficit. The SMIF is a viable surgical option compared with the FFF that can be considered oncologically safe in the N0 neck, allowing for an excellent esthetic reconstruction, with decreased operative time, hospital stay, and donor site morbidity.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]