Evaluation of facial artery perforator-based flaps in reconstruction of facial defects

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Several flaps have been described for reconstructing facial or oral defects. Flaps such as forehead and pectoralis major are often too bulky for small-to-moderate-sized defects, for which nasolabial flaps are often ideal. However, nasolabial flaps have limited mobility and reach and may need two stages, particularly for intraoral defects. According to recent literatures, facial artery provides numerous small cutaneous perforators, based on which skin flaps can be islanded, with greater mobility and reach for reconstruction of small-to-moderate-sized intraoral and facial defects in one stage. Our study aims to evaluate the reliability and versatility of facial artery perforator-based flaps in the reconstruction of such defects. Materials and Methods: A ethical committee-approved retrospective study was conducted on data of the patients attending our outpatient department between February 2014 and October 2015 with small-to-moderate-sized facial/oral lesions. The total sample size was 23. We studied the relation of flap survival with size of flap, route of inset and neck dissection, functional and aesthetic outcomes and feasibility of adjuvant therapy in cases of malignancies. Results and Analysis: A wide range of facial defects, especially intraoral defects, could be reconstructed in one stage using facial artery perforator-based flaps. The flaps were reliable. Complications included only partial skin loss of the flaps in a few cases. Complications were directly related to the length of the flaps and the route of inset. Functional and aesthetic outcomes were satisfactory and none of the flaps showed any significant post-radiotherapy changes. Conclusions: We concluded that facial artery perforator flap can be a simple, safe, versatile and one-stage alternative to the traditional flaps in the reconstruction of small-to-moderate-sized facial defects. Neck dissection can be safely done in the same sitting.

KEY WORDS

Facial artery - nasolabial flap - perforator - propeller flap

• REFERENCES

• 1 Ng ZY, Fogg QA, Shoaib T. Where to find facial artery perforators: A reference point. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63: 2046-51
• 2 D'Arpa S, Cordova A, Pirrello R, Moschella F. Free style facial artery perforator flap for one stage reconstruction of the nasal ala. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 62: 36-42
• 3 Lyons AJ. Perforator flaps in head and neck surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 35: 199-207
• 4 Taylor GI, Palmer JH. The vascular territories (angiosomes) of the body: Experimental study and clinical applications. Br J Plast Surg 1987; 40: 113-41
• 5 Demirseren ME, Afandiyev K, Ceran C. Reconstruction of the perioral and perinasal defects with facial artery perforator flaps. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 62: 1616-20
• 6 Taylor GI, Doyle M, McCarten G. The Doppler probe for planning flaps: Anatomical study and clinical applications. Br J Plast Surg 1990; 43: 1-6
• 7 Kim JT. New nomenclature concept of perforator flap. Br J Plast Surg 2005; 58: 431-40
• 8 Hofstra EI, Hofer SO, Nauta JM, Roodenburg JL, Lichtendahl DH. Oral functional outcome after intraoral reconstruction with nasolabial flaps. Br J Plast Surg 2004; 57: 150-5
• 9 Franzén L, Funegård U, Ericson T, Henriksson R. Parotid gland function during and following radiotherapy of malignancies in the head and neck. A consecutive study of salivary flow and patient discomfort. Eur J Cancer 1992; 28: 457-62
• 10 Houseman ND, Taylor GI, Pan WR. The angiosomes of the head and neck: Anatomic study and clinical applications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 105: 2287-313
• 11 Nakajima H, Imanishi N, Aiso S. Facial artery in the upper lip and nose: Anatomy and a clinical application. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 109: 855-61
• 12 Qassemyar Q, Havet E, Sinna R. Vascular basis of the facial artery perforator flap: Analysis of 101 perforator territories. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129: 421-9
• 13 Blondeel PN, Van Landuyt KH, Monstrey SJ, Hamdi M, Matton GE, Allen RJ. et al. The “Gent” consensus on perforator flap terminology: Preliminary definitions. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 112: 1378-83