Evaluation of the donor site after the median forehead flap

Background Forehead flaps are useful for facial reconstruction. Studies of these flaps have mostly focused on the results of the reconstruction. However, due to the scarring and changes on the forehead caused by the median forehead flap (MFF), surgeons may be reluctant to perform this flap. Research into the donor site is needed for practical purposes.

Methods We examined 42 patients who underwent an MFF at Pusan National University Hospital from 1996 to 2016. Based on a retrospective chart review, we examined the occurrence of complications. We also evaluated scars on the forehead using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and assessed changes in the eyebrow position of 22 patients.

Results No complications occurred in the 42 patients. The mean VSS score of the 22 patients was 2.8±0.79. The ratio of the height of the eyebrow on each side to the distance between the medial canthi increased postoperatively, meaning that both the left and right brows were elevated slightly (P=0.026 and P=0.014). However, the symmetry between the left and right sides did not change (P=0.979). The ratio of the interbrow distance to the distance between the medial canthi decreased slightly, meaning that the interbrow distance narrowed mildly (P<0.001). Moreover, there were no noticeable changes in the brow position as seen in a photo overlay.

Conclusions There were no notable complications in the forehead. Forehead scarring was acceptable. No change in brow symmetry was observed via photographic measurements and a photo overlay. Therefore, we propose that the MFF is a useful choice for minimizing scarring or deformation of the donor site.

Keywords

Forehead - Surgical flaps - Cicatrix - Eyebrows

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 08. August 2017

Angenommen: 05. April 2018

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
03. April 2022

• REFERENCES

• 1 Menick FJ. Nasal reconstruction: forehead flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 113: 100e-111e
• 2 Price DL, Sherris DA, Bartley GB. et al. Forehead flap periorbital reconstruction. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004; 6: 222-7
• 3 Menick FJ. Aesthetic nasal reconstruction. In: Eduardo DR. Plastic surgery. 3th ed. Elsevier; 2012: 134-86
• 4 Park SS. The single-stage forehead flap in nasal reconstruction: an alternative with advantages. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2002; 4: 32-6
• 5 McCarthy JG, Lorenc ZP, Cutting C. et al. The median forehead flap revisited: the blood supply. Plast Reconstr Surg 1985; 76: 866-9
• 6 Reece EM, Schaverien M, Rohrich RJ. The paramedian forehead flap: a dynamic anatomical vascular study verifying safety and clinical implications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121: 1956-63
• 7 Skaria AM. The median forehead flap reviewed: a histologic study on vascular anatomy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 272: 1231-7
• 8 Bae SH, Bae YC. Analysis of frequency of use of different scar assessment scales based on the scar condition and treatment method. Arch Plast Surg 2014; 41: 111-5
• 9 Kim BP, Goode RL, Newman JP. Brow elevation ratio: a new method of brow analysis. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009; 11: 34-9
• 10 Kokubo K, Katori N, Hayashi K. et al. Evaluation of the eyebrow position after levator resection. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2017; 70: 85-90
• 11 Verduijn PS, Selles RW, Mureau MA. A simple, reliable, and validated method for measuring brow position. Ann Plast Surg 2014; 73: 81-5
• 12 Macdonald KI, Mendez AI, Hart RD. et al. Eyelid and brow asymmetry in patients evaluated for upper lid blepharoplasty. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014; 43: 36