Pectoralis Major Myocutaneous (PMMC) Flap ( Chapter 111 ) |
|
Indications |
-
Partial defects in the pharyngeal mucosa (the width of the flap is decided by the width of the remnant pharyngeal mucosa)
-
Circumferential defects in the pharyngeal mucosa (the width of the flap required is 8 to 10 cm)
|
Contraindications |
|
Advantages |
-
Operating time is reduced, which is especially important among emaciated and fragile hypopharyngeal cancer patients
-
Fan-shaped muscular portion of the flap is helpful for protecting the carotid artery, especially in post-radiotherapy patients
-
No microsurgical training is required
-
The flap donor site can be closed primarily with minimal morbidity
|
Disadvantages |
-
This flap provides a suboptimal reconstructive choice when a significant part of the base of tongue or the lateral oropharyngeal wall has been resected; the weight and the downward traction of the flap significantly impair the mobility of the tongue, resulting in degradation of augmented speech and poorer swallowing function
-
The bulkiness of the flap makes it difficult to be sutured at the relatively narrow cervical esophageal stump, resulting in circumferential stenosis; this can be partially overcome by performing interdigitations to provide a zigzag configuration at the distal anastomosis
-
The bulkiness and rigidity of the PMMC flap reduce its vibratory properties, resulting in poor phonatory outcomes
-
The flap can result in distortion and blocking of the tracheostoma in obese patients and patients with a short neck
-
For circumferential defects, the three-point closure sites are prone to fistula formation and subsequent stenosis
-
Complication rates in relation to stenosis and pharyngocutaneous fistula are higher as compared to free flaps
-
May result in significant breast deformity in female patients
|
Remarks |
-
As the muscle bulk sometimes prevents complete tubulization, Fabian and Spriano and colleagues modified the technique by using a U-shaped reconstruction of the circumferential hypopharyngeal defect by suturing the flap edges to the prevertebral fascia, either covering the fascia by a skin graft or leaving it bare
-
The PMMC flap can be considered a reconstructive option for thin male patients with partial hypopharyngeal defects and significant comorbidity where a prolonged operative time is to be avoided
|
Radial Forearm Free Flap (RFFF) ( Chapter 114 ) |
|
Indications |
|
Contraindications |
Resection margin reaching beyond the thoracic inlet |
Advantages |
-
The pharyngocutaneous fistula rates are lower than those with the PMMC flap and comparable with other free flaps
-
Its long vascular pedicle, low donor site morbidity, good caliber vessels, tolerance to long ischemia times, and relative ease in harvesting make it a good option for pharyngeal reconstruction
-
The radial artery and the cephalic vein have a certain degree of independence from each other, which makes microvascular anastomosis possible on recipient vessels located at considerable distance from each other, even on opposite sides of the neck
-
A skin island of up to 12 to 14 cm 2 can easily be harvested without donor site problems
-
The good pliability of the flap has a definite advantage over PMMC and anterolateral thigh (ALT) flaps, especially among obese patients, resulting in superior voice and swallowing outcome
-
The low volume of the flap does not hamper primary closure of the neck
-
Hair growth even in men is exceedingly low on the volar aspect of the forearm as compared with the thigh and the chest
|
Disadvantages |
-
Potential donor site morbidities including tendon exposure, partial loss of skin graft, hypovascularization with cold intolerance, and transient or permanent numbness of the first two fingers and dorsum of hand
-
The flap does not provide muscle for covering the carotids or reinforcing the pharyngeal closure
-
Three-point closure is required for circumferential defects
|
Anterolateral Thigh Flap (ALT) ( Chapter 119 ) |
Introduced by Song and colleagues in 1984 |
Indications |
|
Contraindications |
Resection margin reaching beyond the thoracic inlet obvious severe peripheral vascular disease (preoperative angiography is warranted in these circumstances) |
Advantages |
-
The pharyngocutaneous fistula rate of the ALT flap is lower than that observed in RFFF; this may be related to the generous amount of vascularized fascia lata that can be harvested with the flap, which can be used as a second layer closure; a lower fistula rate is associated with a lower rate of stenosis formation
-
In selected patients, an extensive portion of the vastus lateralis muscle can be harvested with the skin or independently, and it can be used for a second layer closure over the suture line or for protecting the great vessels of the neck
-
Large skin paddles or two separate skin paddles can be harvested with minimal donor site morbidity
-
Remoteness of the thigh from the head and neck makes the two-surgical-team approach possible, thus reducing the operating time
-
As hypopharyngeal cancer patients are frequently emaciated, they have decreased thigh bulk, which facilitates tubing the flap for circumferential defects
-
The diameter of the tubed flap corresponds well with the diameter of the remnant oropharyngeal mucosa in circumferential defects
|
Disadvantages |
-
In obese patients, the bulk of the flap impairs the vibratory property of the neopharynx, resulting in poor speech
-
Mismatch in lumen diameter between the tubed flap and the cervical esophagus in circumferential defects
-
Three-point closure is required for circumferential defects
|
Remarks |
As a general rule, the ALT free flap is the first-line reconstructive option for pharyngeal defects; the only limiting factors are the requirement for microvascular expertise and prolonged operating time |
Jejunal Free Flaps |
Introduced by Seidenberg and colleagues in 1959 |
Indications |
Circumferential pharyngeal defects |
Contraindications |
Resection margin reaching beyond the thoracic inlet |
Advantages |
-
Diameter of the jejunum matches with the esophageal stump mucosa
-
For circumferential defects, there is no three-point closure, as required in tubed fasciocutaneous or PMMC flaps
-
Mucosa is replaced by mucosa
-
Intrinsic peristaltic activity of the jejunum helps in bolus propulsion; however, the initial peristaltic movements are not coordinated, and patients usually complain of dysphagia in the early postoperative period
|
Disadvantages |
-
Perioperative donor site complications are high; mortality ranges from 0% to 17% (mean, 2.5%), which is four times higher than for fasciocutaneous free flaps; morbidities of an abdominal surgery include bowel obstruction, abdominal bleeding, acute gastric dilatation, superior mesenteric syndrome, laparocele, wound infection or dehiscence, abdominal wall hematoma, and prolonged ileus
-
Limited ischemic tolerance of the jejunal flap commonly results in partial necrosis, pharyngocutaneous fistula, and subsequent stenosis.
-
The length of the vascular pedicle (10 to 15 cm) is roughly half that usually observed in RFFF and ALT free flaps
-
Voice (in patients with a tracheoesophageal puncture) is usually “wet and gurgly”
-
Tolerance of the jejunum to radiotherapy is only 50 Gy, which is lower than the recommended dose of postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy in head and neck cancer patients
-
Three intestinal and two microvascular anastomoses are required
-
The flimsy and friable nature of vessels (particularly the vein) as compared to fasciocutaneous flaps.
-
There is a frequent mismatch in diameter at the pharyngeal end
-
External skin defect, if present, requires another flap
|
Gastro-omental Flap |
Introduced by Baudet in 1979 |
Indications |
Circumferential pharyngeal defects |
Contraindications |
Resection margin reaching beyond the thoracic inlet |
Advantages |
-
The main advantage over a jejunal free flap is the provision of a generous amount of highly vascularized greater omentum to be draped around the neopharyngeal conduit, covering the great vessels and filling dead space
-
Length of gut that can be obtained is about 30 cm
-
Good caliber vessels and superb independent mobility of the gastroepiploic vascular pedicle
|
Disadvantages |
High perioperative donor site complications (similar to jejunal flap) |
Remarks |
-
Gastro-omental free flap is currently recommended in the management of
-
select, complicated high-risk conditions in which a generally healthy patient (able to withstand the potential complications of an abdominal procedure) is associated with a serious local wound problem owing to infection, hypovascularization, or necrosis
|
Gastric Pull-Up |
Introduced by Ong and Lee, and was popularized by Le Quesne and Ranger in 1966 |
Indications |
Only reconstructive option when the tumor extends to the thoracic esophagus or the resection margin reaches beyond the thoracic inlet |
Contraindications |
High upper limit of resection of pharynx (oropharynx or above) where reach of mobilized stomach is difficult |
Advantages |
|
Disadvantages |
|