Browse > Article

PRELAMINATED FREE FLAP FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MAXILLARY DEFECTS  

Kim, Ji-Youn (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Seoul National University)
Pang, Kang-Mi (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Seoul National University)
Park, Jong-Chul (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Seoul National University)
Kim, Sung-Min (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Seoul National University)
Myoung, Hoon (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Seoul National University)
Kim, Myung-Jin (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Seoul National University)
Lee, Jong-Ho (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons / v.35, no.1, 2009 , pp. 13-20 More about this Journal
Abstract
Background In contrast to defects of the mandible and mouth floor region, in the defect of maxilla, the availability of firmly attached oral and nasal mucosal linings is needed. In addition to it, in consider of operation field, operating convenience, and esthetics, reconstruction using prelaminated flap is strongly recommended. Therefore we consider the prelaminated flap through the cases that is reconstructed using prelaminated forearm flap and prelaminated scapular flap. Patients and Methods From 2001 to 2008, in OMFS SNUDH, there were 6 cases that had reconstruction using prelaminated forearm free flap and other 3 cases that had reconstruction using prelaminated scapular flap of maxilla. The average age of patients that were reconstructed using prelaminated forearm free flap was 47.5 years, the average prelaminated period (after $1^{st}$ operation ${\sim}$ until $2^{nd}$ operation) was 51.8 days and the average follow-up period after $2^{nd}$ operation was 35.3 months. As well, the average age of patients that were reconstructed using prelaminated scapular free flap was 37 years, the average prelaminated period (after $1^{st}$ operation ${\sim}$ until $2^{nd}$ operation) was 57 days and the average follow-up period after $2^{nd}$ operation was 42.3 months. Results Except 1 case that were reconstructed using prelaminated scapular flap, we could get firmly attached oral and nasal stable skin(mucosal like) lining, more adequate thickness flap than any other flap and improved esthetic and functional results in the other 8 cases that were reconstructed using prelaminated flap. The complications of the prelaminated forearm flap cases were inconvenient swallowing, sputum, limitation of mouth opening and difficult mastication. It came from flap shrinkage of the flap in some aspect, as well as other combined operations such as mass resection or RND. The difficult point of the reconstruction of prelaminated scapular flap was the possibility of vascular damage at preparation of flap in $2^{nd}$ surgery. The damage could cause the failure of the prelaminated scapular flap. And the skin-lining of the prelaminated flap had limitations, so it is needed to study about the cultured oral epithelium-lining flap instead of the skin-lining flap. Conclusion We considered about advantages, complications and notable things of prelaminated flap through maxillary reconstruction cases using prelaminated forearm flap and prelaminated scapular flap so far. Furthermore, we should go on studying for functional reconstruction of prelaminated fasciomucosal flap using cultured oral epithelium.
Keywords
Prelaminated forearm flap; Prelaminated scapular flap; Maxillofacial reconstruction; Maxillary defect;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Pribaz JJ, Fine NA: Prefabricated and prelaminated flaps for head and neck reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 2001 ;28:261-272   PUBMED
2 이종호, 김명진, 박종철, 김영수, 안강민, 팽준영 등 분층피부와 분말골로 이식 전 처리된 유리견갑골근피판과 임플란트 보철을 이용한 경구개와 상악골의 기능적 재건. 대한구강악안면외과학회지 2004;30:301-307   과학기술학회마을
3 신영민, 정헌종, 안강민, 박희정, 성미애, 이종호 등 가토모델에서 배양 구강상피를 이용한 근-점막 피판의 형성에 관한 연구. 대한악안면성형재건외과학회지 2005;27:226-237
4 Lauer G, Schimming R, Gellrich NC, Schmelzeisen R: Prelaminating the fascial radial forearm flap by using tissue-engineered mucosa: improvement of donor and recipient sites. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;108:1564-1572   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Schipper J, Ridder GJ, Maier W, Teszler CB, Horch RE: Laryngotracheal reconstruction using prefabricated and preconditioned composite radial forearm free flaps. A report of two cases. Auris Nasus Larynx 2007;34:253-258   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Maxwell GP, Leonard LG, Manson PN, Hoopes JE: Craniofacial coverage using the latissimus dorsi myocutaneous island flap. Ann Plast Surg 1980;4:410-421   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
7 Vinzenz KG, Holle J, Wuringer E, Kulenkampff KJ: Prefabrication of combined scapula flaps for microsurgical reconstruction in oro-maxillofacial defects: a new method. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1996;24:214-223   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Kunstfeld R, Petzelbauer P, Wickenhauser G, Schlenz I, Korak K, Vinzenz K, et al.: The prefabricated scapula flap consists of syngeneic bone, connective tissue, and a self-assembled epithelial coating. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;108 :1908-1914   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Poeschl PW, Kermer C, Wagner A, Klug C, Ziya-Ghazvini F, Poeschl E: The radial free forearm flap--prelaminated versus non-prelaminated: a comparison of two methods. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;32:159-166   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Sharzer LA, Horton CE, Adamson JE, Carraway JH, McCraw JB: Intraoral reconstruction in head and neck cancer surgery. Clin Plast Surg 1976;3:495-509   PUBMED
11 Wolff KD, Ervens J, Hoffmeister B: Improvement of the radial forearm donor site by prefabrication of fascial-split-thickness skin grafts. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996;98:358-362   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Ahn KM, Lee JH, Hwang SJ, Choung PH, Kim MJ, Park HJ, et al.: Fabrication of myomucosal flap using tissue-engineered bioartificial mucosa constructed with oral keratinocytes cultured on amniotic membrane. Artif Organs 2006;30:411-423   DOI   ScienceOn