• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.29 no.6
• /
• pp.455-459
• /
• 2003

The Reconstructive techniques of palatal defect are palatal island flap, palatal mucoperiosteal expansion, buccal flap, tongue flap, pushback palatoplasty, free flap and so on. We report a reconstruction of palatal defect using palatal flap. Excellent results were obtained by palatal connective tissue island flap and split thickness pedicle flap. Healing of defect occured rapidly. There were no postoperative complications except dull pain.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.39
• /
• pp.24.1-24.6
• /
• 2017

Background: Tunneled transposition of the facial artery myomucosal (FAMM) island flap on the lingual side of the mandible has been reported for intraoral as well as oropharyngeal reconstruction. This modified technique overcomes the limitations of short range and dentition and further confirms the flexibility of the flap. This paper presents a case of reconstructing secondary soft palatal defect due to flap necrosis following two-flap palatoplasty in irradiated patient with lingually transposed facial artery myomucosal island flap. Case presentation: The authors successfully reconstructed secondary soft palatal defect due to flap necrosis following two-flap palatoplasty in an irradiated 59-year-old female patient with tunnelized-facial artery myomucosal island flap (t-FAMMIF). Conclusions: Islanding and tunneling modification extends the versatility of the FAMM flap in the reconstruction of soft palatal defects post tumor excision and even after radiation, giving a great range of rotation and eliminating the need for revision in a second stage procedure. The authors thus highly recommend this versatile flap for the reconstruction of small and medium-sized oral defects.

• Archives of Craniofacial Surgery
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.70-74
• /
• 2014

Background: Many options are available to cover a palatal defect, including local or free flaps. The objective of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of palatal mucoperiosteal island flap in covering a palatal defect after tumor excision. Methods: Between October 2006 and July 2013, we identified 19 patients who underwent palatal reconstruction using a palatal mucoperiosteal island flap after tumor excision. All cases were retrospectively analyzed by defect location, size, tumor pathology, type of reconstruction, and functional outcomes. Speech and swallowing functions were evaluated using a 7-point visual analog scale (VAS) score. Results: Among the 19 patients, there were 7 men and 12 women with an age range of 25 to 74 years (mean, $52.5{\pm}14.3$ years). The size of flaps was $2-16cm^2$ (mean, $9.4{\pm}4.2cm^2$). Either unilateral or bilateral palatal island flaps were used depending on the size of defect. During the follow-up period (mean, $32.7{\pm}21.4$ months), four patients developed a temporary oronasal fistula, which healed without subsequent operative. The donor sites were well re-epithelized. Speech and swallowing function scores were $6.63{\pm}0.5$ and $6.58{\pm}0.69$ on the 7-point VAS, indicating the ability to eat solid foods and communicate verbally without significant disability. Conclusion: The palatal mucoperiosteal island flap is a good reconstruction modality for palatal defects if used under appropriate indications. The complication rates and donor site morbidity are low, with good functional outcomes.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.100-106
• /
• 2013

There are many challenges for reconstruction after intraoral tumor resection. Especially, palatomaxillary reconstruction has two primary goals: closure of the oronasal communication and re-creation of proper myomucosal function. Prosthodontic treatment using obturator and several surgical procedures are selected depending on the size and site of the defect, the difficulty of operative procedure, operation time and donor site problem. Above all, it is considered that radial forearm free flap is the first choice for palatal reconstruction. Our department introduces a novel method using tunnelized-facial artery myomucosal island flap for palatomaxillary defect reconstruction, which can successfully reduce donor-site morbidity, and duration of surgery and hospitalization.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.8.1-8.5
• /
• 2020

Background: The cause of maxillary growth restriction in patients with cleft lip and palate remains controversial. While studies have investigated the effects surgical technique and timing have on maxillary growth, few focus on patients with isolated cleft palate (ICP). The purpose of this study was to determine the impact palate repair and its associated complications may have on maxillary growth. Methods: A retrospective chart review of ICP patients who underwent palatoplasty from 1962 to 1999 at Akron Children's Hospital was performed. Patient demographics, Veau type, age at primary repair, closure technique, presence of fistula or velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI), number of palatal operations, maxillary hypoplasia (MH) frequency, and follow-up were recorded. Exclusion criteria included patients with cleft lip, submucous cleft, or syndromes. Results: Twenty-nine non-syndromic ICP patients were identified; 62% (n = 18) had Veau type 1 and 38% (n = 11) had Veau type 2. All patients underwent 2-flap or Furlow palatoplasty with mobilization of mucoperiosteal flaps. Vomerine flaps were used in all Veau 2 cleft palate closures. Palatoplasty was performed at a mean age of 19.9 ± 8.2 months. Average follow-up was 209 ± 66.5 months. The rate of VPI was 59% (n = 17) and the rate of oronasal fistula was 14% (n = 4). Conclusions: There was a low incidence of MH despite complications after initial palate closure. Our results seem to suggest that age at palate closure, type of cleft palate, and type of surgical technique may not be associated with MH. Additionally, subsequent procedures and complications after primary palatoplasty such as VPI and palatal fistula may not restrict maxillary growth.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.185-190
• /
• 1998

Various local flaps and distant flaps including tongue flap, palatal island flap, and buccal flap as well as skin grafts have been used for the reconstruction of oral mucosal defect. In the posterior region of oral cavity and the buccal cheek area, buccal fat pad can be used as a pedicled graft. The buccal fat pad is different from other subcutaneous fat tissue and it is easily accessible. There are many advantages in pedicled buccal fat pad graft for the closure of oral mucosal defect. The procedure is easy, there is no visible scar in the donor site, it is capable of reconstruction of various contour, and it has good viability. We had used buccal fat pad as a pedicled graft for the closure of oral mucosal defect after the excision of tumor and the oroantral fistula. From the results of these cases, we concluded that the use of the buccal fat pad flaps was worth of the consideration for the reconstruction of oral mucosal defect in the regions of the buccal cheek, and posterior oral cavity.