scholarly journals Modifications of Paramedian Forehead Flap

Author(s):  
◽  
◽  

Introduction Paramedian forehead flap an interpolated flap based on supratrochlear vessels is considered as a workhorse for nasal and periorbital reconstruction however it re-quires modification’s to meet reconstruction requirement. Modifications includes islanded single stage forehead flap, expanded forehead flap, pre-fabricated with rib cartilage, folded forehead flap, split forehead flap and delayed flap, are associated with complications which can be minimized using different techniques. This article’s objective is to re-view indications for modification of Paramedian forehead flap, its complications and techniques of minimizing them. Methods: Twenty-three patients with facial defects reconstructed with modified Paramedian forehead flap were analysed by non-probability purposive sampling from September 2010 to August 2014, while traditional forehead flap reconstructions were excluded. Results: Nasal and periorbital region defects were present in twenty-one and two patients respectively.13 had full thickness nasal defects, 14 had BCC while SCC in 2 patients. Reconstruction was performed in multiple stages except in three patients. Expanded forehead flap was used in four, subcutaneously islanded pedicle forehead and flap prefabricated forehead flaps in three each, split forehead and delayed reconstruction in two patients each. No total loss of flap was observed except in one folded forehead flap where partial distal one cmnecrosed; one patient with expanded forehead flap required revision due to flap contraction. Conclusions: Modifications of Paramedian forehead flap appear reliable, versatile and excellent tool for nasal and periorbital reconstruction. Judicious modifications of flap de-sign as per indication can give satisfactory results with minimal complications by following the techniques mentioned in literature.

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eamonn Maher ◽  
Scott Walen ◽  
Ian Maher

<p>The nose is a common site for skin cancer and there are several surgical options available for reconstruction after excision. Traditional surgical teaching suggests that in the case of a partial full thickness defect involving the distal nose or ala, a paramedian forehead flap (PMFF) or an intranasal lining flap with free cartilage graft and additional cutaneous flap should be performed. However, each of these options comes with unique disadvantages. The incision and pedicle required for the PMFF can be unsightly and functionally limiting, while the intranasal lining flap is technically challenging and can obstruct the nostril. Herein, we review our experience with a two-stage folded-over melolabial interpolation flap (MLIF) to repair partial full thickness defects of the distal nose and ala in order to recreate the cutaneous covering, nasal rim, and inner mucosal lining.</p>


2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Felipe Bochnia Cerci

<p>The paramedian forehead flap is a great option for restoring complex nasal defects. Its main indications are large and deep wounds located on the distal third of the nose (tip and ala). For full-thickness defects, the paramedian forehead flap may be used alone or in combination with other methods. We presented a patient with a nodular basal cell carcinoma on the nasal tip and collumela treated by Mohs micrographic surgery and repaired with a paramedian forehead flap. Prior to reconstruction, it is essential that surgical margins are completely evaluated and free of tumor. For optimal paramedian forehead flap results, adequate surgical planning and meticulous technique are imperative.</p>


2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 1282 ◽  
Author(s):  
HananAli Ali Dawoud ◽  
TarekFouad Keshk ◽  
AhmedFarag El-kased ◽  
DaliaMofreh El-Sakka ◽  
SherifMohamed El-kashty

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (8) ◽  
pp. 2041-2048
Author(s):  
Wen‐Chao Zhang ◽  
Zhifei Liu ◽  
Xiaojun Wang ◽  
Ruijia Dong ◽  
Ang Zeng ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Viresh Arora ◽  
Faisal Ashfaq ◽  
Atif Rafique

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Composite defects of nose and cheek are best stage reconstructed with separate nose and cheek flaps to recreate a blended nose-cheek junction, achieved by cheek advancement flap for cheek and forehead flap or local grafts for the nasal defect. This article analyses whether reconstruction of defects utilizing well-known subunit principle is cosmetically the best?</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> Case records of fifteen patients of nasal cancers extension into the cheek from January 2011 to December 2015 were analyzed retrospectively.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> Out of fifteen patients 8 were men and 7 women, two patients had SCC, rest had BCC. Average size of defect was 4.5 cm. Modified Imre’s cheek advancement flaps was used in all to reconstruct cheek defects while paramedian forehead flap was used for nasal reconstruction in 13 patients, skin graft and nasal advancement flap in one each. Eight patients underwent single stage reconstruction while seven with full thickness nasal defects had a delayed reconstruction. 13 patients rated their final appearance as satisfactory, while surgeon rated 12 patients with well-blended nose-cheek junction as satisfactory and lateral migration of junction being unsatisfactory. Alar retraction was observed in two patients with full thickness nasal defects. Two patients who underwent inner nasal lining reconstruction developed wound dehiscence while simultaneous reconstruction of nose and cheek was performed.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Subunit principle application for composite nose and cheek results in symmetrical nose-cheek junction and appears excellent technique in achieving a satisfactory aesthetic outcome. Optimal results in full thickness nasal defects are achieved where reconstructing is delayed.</p>


2005 ◽  
Vol 132 (3) ◽  
pp. 381-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack D. Sedwick ◽  
Vicki Graham ◽  
Christopher J. Tolan ◽  
Jonathan M. Sykes ◽  
Raj P. Terkonda

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document