| Autor: |
Veldhuizen IJ; Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.; Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.; Dermatology Division, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA., Budo J; Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands., Kallen EJJ; Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands., Sijben I; Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands., Hölscher MC; Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands., van der Hulst RRWJ; Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands., Hoogbergen MM; Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands., Ottenhof MJ; Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands., Lee EH; Dermatology Division, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA. |
| Abstrakt: |
Background: Reconstruction of nasal skin defects can be challenging due to limited skin laxity and underlying cartilage and, therefore, often require a complex repair. The aim of this review is to systematically analyze the literature on nasal skin reconstructions with specific detail to flap reconstructions. Methods: A systematic literature review of nasal skin reconstruction was performed and focused on flap reconstructions. Flap reconstructions were stratified based on defect size, nasal subunit, and reconstruction type. Complication rates (CRs) and patient outcomes were also assessed. Results: A total of 176 articles (11,370 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 59 articles showed various flap techniques. For defects ≤1.5 cm, every subunit had four to six options except the alar rim, which showed one option. Rotation-advancement flaps were mostly used for the nasal tip and sidewall, whereas bilobed flaps were used more for the ala and dorsum. Defects >1.5 cm were most commonly reconstructed with the forehead flap. The mean CR of flap reconstructions was 13.8%. Only 8 of the 176 articles (4.5%) reported patient satisfaction using a standardized questionnaire. Conclusion: This review shows various flap reconstruction options with their corresponding CR that will help guide the surgeon in choosing reconstructive options for different nasal skin defects. |
