Download PDF
CC BY-NC 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2013; 40(06): 754-760
DOI: 10.5999/aps.2013.40.6.754
Original Article

Reconstruction of Various Perinasal Defects Using Facial Artery Perforator-Based Nasolabial Island Flaps

Tae Ho Yoon
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
In Sik Yun
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Dong Kyun Rha
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Won Jai Lee
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Background Classical flaps for perinasal defect reconstruction, such as forehead or nasolabial flaps, have some disadvantages involving limitations of the arc of rotation and two stages of surgery. However, a perforator-based flap is more versatile and allows freedom in flap design. We introduced our experience with reconstruction using a facial artery perforator-based propeller flap on the perinasal area. We describe the surgical differences between different defect subtypes.

Methods Between December 2005 and August 2013, 10 patients underwent perinasal reconstruction in which a facial artery perforator-based flap was used. We divided the perinasal defects into types A and B, according to location. The operative results, including flap size, arc of rotation, complications, and characteristics of the perforator were evaluated by retrospective chart review and photographic evaluation.

Results Eight patients were male and 2 patients were female. Their mean age was 61 years (range, 35-75 years). The size of the flap ranged from 1 cm×1.5 cm to 3 cm×6 cm. Eight patients healed uneventfully, but 2 patients presented with mild flap congestion. However, these 2 patients healed by conservative management without any additional surgery. All of the flaps survived completely with aesthetically pleasing results.

Conclusions The facial artery perforator-based flap allowed for versatile customized flaps, and the donor site scar was concealed using the natural nasolabial fold.

Keywords

Perforator flap - Nose - Surgical flaps

This article was presented as a poster at the Research and Reconstructive Forum May 12-13, 2011 in Daejeon, Korea.




Publication History

Received: 27 May 2013

Accepted: 26 July 2013

Article published online:
01 May 2022

© 2013. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, permitting unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Menick FJ, Salibian A. Microvascular repair of heminasal, subtotal, and total nasal defects with a folded radial forearm flap and a full-thickness forehead flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127: 637-651
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Menick FJ. Nasal reconstruction with a forehead flap. Clin Plast Surg 2009; 36: 443-459
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cameron RR, Latham WD, Dowling JA. Reconstructions of the nose and upper lip with nasolabial flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 1973; 52: 145-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Chu EA, Byrne PJ. Local flaps I: bilobed, rhombic, and cervicofacial. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2009; 17: 349-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kwon KH, Lee DG, Koo SH. et al. Usefulness of v-y advancement flap for defects after skin tumor excision. Arch Plast Surg 2012; 39: 619-625
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Krijgh DD, Mureau MA. Aesthetic and functional outcome following perioral defect reconstruction using the facial artery perforator flap. J Reconstr Microsurg 2012; 28: 529-538
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kim SW, Kim YH, Kim JT. Angular artery perforator-based transposition flap for the reconstruction of midface defect. Int J Dermatol 2012; 51: 1366-1370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hofer SO, Posch NA, Smit X. The facial artery perforator flap for reconstruction of perioral defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 115: 996-1003
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 D'Arpa S, Cordova A, Pirrello R. et al. Free style facial artery perforator flap for one stage reconstruction of the nasal ala. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 62: 36-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sohn WI, Choi JY, Seo BF. et al. Reconstruction of nasal ala with nasolabial perforator flap after cancer removal. Head Neck Oncol 2012; 4: 83
    Google Scholar
  • 11 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: 1616-1620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Karsidag S, Ozcan A, Sumer O. et al. Single-stage ala nasi reconstruction: lateral nasal artery perforator flap. J Craniofac Surg 2010; 21: 1887-1889
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Feinendegen DL, Langer M, Gault D. A combined V-Y advancement-turnover flap for simultaneous perialar and alar reconstruction. Br J Plast Surg 2000; 53: 248-250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Koshima I, Soeda S. Inferior epigastric artery skin flaps without rectus abdominis muscle. Br J Plast Surg 1989; 42: 645-648
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Blondeel PN, Van Landuyt KH, Monstrey SJ. et al. The "Gent" consensus on perforator flap terminology: preliminary definitions. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 112: 1378-1383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kim JT. New nomenclature concept of perforator flap. Br J Plast Surg 2005; 58: 431-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Pignatti M, Ogawa R, Hallock GG. et al. The "Tokyo" consensus on propeller flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127: 716-722
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Houseman ND, Taylor GI, Pan WR. The angiosomes of the head and neck: anatomic study and clinical applications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 105: 2287-2313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nakajima H, Imanishi N, Aiso S. Facial artery in the upper lip and nose: anatomy and a clinical application. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 109: 855-861
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Niranjan NS. An anatomical study of the facial artery. Ann Plast Surg 1988; 21: 14-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ng ZY, Fogg QA, Shoaib T. Where to find facial artery perforators: a reference point. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63: 2046-2051
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Qassemyar Q, Havet E, Sinna R. Vascular basis of the facial artery perforator flap: analysis of 101 perforator territories. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129: 421-429
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar