Approaches to Cheek Reconstruction following Mohs Surgery

Abstract

The native features of the cheek allow for a variety of approaches when considering reconstruction following Mohs surgery. Selecting the best approach requires consideration of deficit size and location, skin laxity, surrounding anatomy, aesthetic outcomes, and specific patient factors. Reconstruction options vary based on the zone of the cheek affected, but direct closure remains the gold standard. When direct closure is not suitable, the use of the cervicofacial advancement flap, biologic agents, or a combination of the two should adequately address the majority of cheek deficits resulting from Mohs surgery. During cheek reconstruction, great care should be taken to maintain and support the surrounding anatomy, most notably the lower eyelid. Postoperative management is mostly comprised of scar management, as immediate, urgent complications are rare. Options to address postoperative scarring range from silicone sheeting to revisional surgery, but most deficits will settle well if given adequate time and are properly cared for with noninvasive measures.

Keywords

cheek reconstruction - direct closure of cheek - cervicofacial advancement flap - Integra - NovoSorb BTM

Publication History

Article published online:
04 November 2024

• References

• 1 Rapstine ED, Knaus II WJ, Thornton JF. Simplifying cheek reconstruction: a review of over 400 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129 (06) 1291-1299
• 2 Roth DA, Longaker MT, Zide BM. Cheek surface reconstruction: best choices according to zones. Oper Tech Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998; 5: 26-36
• 3 Başağaoğlu B, Bhadkamkar M, Hollier P, Reece E. Approach to reconstruction of cheek defects. Semin Plast Surg 2019; 33 (03) 185-189
• 4 Pepper J-P, Baker SR. Local flaps: cheek and lip reconstruction. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2013; 15 (05) 374-382
• 5 Johnson AR, Egeler SA, Wu WW, Bucknor A, Ibrahim AMS, Lin SJ. Facial reconstruction after Mohs surgery: a critical review of defects involving the cheek, forehead, and perioral region. J Craniofac Surg 2019; 30 (02) 400-407
• 6 Sakellariou A, Salama A. The use of cervicofacial flap in maxillofacial reconstruction. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2014; 26 (03) 389-400
• 7 Liebau J, Schulz A, Arens A, Tilkorn H, Schwipper V. Management of lower lid ectropion. Dermatol Surg 2006; 32 (08) 1050-1056 , discussion 1056–1057
• 8 Devine M, Edmondson M, Gearing P. et al. NovoSorb® biodegradable temporising matrix (BTM) in the reconstruction of cutaneous malignancies in a major cancer centre: a case series. ANZ J Surg 2024
• 9 Kim JH, Jeong HS, Lee BH. et al. Reconstructive modalities according to aesthetic consideration of subunits of the cheek after wide excision of skin cancer. Arch Aesthetic Plast Surg 2016; 22 (01) 28-34
• 10 Ebrahimi A, Nejadsarvari N. Experience with cervicofacial flap in cheek reconstruction. J Craniofac Surg 2013; 24 (04) e372-e374
• 11 Wu SS, Wells M, Ascha M, Duggal R, Gatherwright J, Chepla K. Head and neck wound reconstruction using biodegradable temporizing matrix versus collagen-chondroitin silicone bilayer. Eplasty 2022; 22: e31
• 12 Chang DK, Louis MR, Gimenez A, Reece EM. The basics of integra dermal regeneration template and its expanding clinical applications. Semin Plast Surg 2019; 33 (03) 185-189
• 13 Taub PJ. Cervicofacial flap. In: Anh Tran T, Panthaki Z, Hoballah J, Thaller S. eds. Operative Dictations in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Cham: Springer; 2017: 353-355