Oral cancer reconstruction using the pedicled supraclavicular artery island flap: comparison to pectoralis major myocutaneous flap
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-4598.2019.03.010
- VernacularTitle: 带蒂锁骨上动脉皮瓣与胸大肌肌皮瓣在口腔癌术后缺损修复中的对比研究
- Author:
Wei WANG
1
;
Wenquan HUANG
1
;
Lin JIANG
1
;
Yisen SHAO
1
,
2
Author Information
1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanchang 330006, China
2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Supraclavicular artery island flap;
Pectoralis major myocutaneous flap;
Oral cavity, cancer;
Defect, repair
- From:
Chinese Journal of Plastic Surgery
2019;35(3):264-268
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the pedicled supraclavicular artery island flap (SCAIF) and the pectoralis major myocutaneous flap (PMMF) for oral reconstruction after cancer resection.
Methods:This is a retrospective study from May 2007 to May 2017. Sixty-one patients from the Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine and the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, were included. All the patients underwent oral squamous cell carcinoma resection and pedicled flap reconstruction. Sixteen patients were performed SCAIFs (group A), and 45 were performed PMMFs (group B). The flap survival rate, flap size, flap preparation time, the presence of scar hyperplasia, pigmentation and dysfunction (temporary or permanent) were compared between these two groups.
Results:The survival rate of flaps in group A was 93.75% (15/16), and the survival rate of flaps in group B was 95.56% (43/45). There was no statistically significant difference in the survival rate of flaps, the average skin flap size or flap produce time between these 2 groups. There were no scar hyperplasia, pigmentation and dysfunction was observed in group A. However, scar hyperplasia (n=11), pigmentation (n=10) and dysfunction (n=12) occurred in group B. The difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).
Conclusions:This study suggests that SCAIF is more reliable, and brings more satisfied outcome, when compared with the PMMF.
