Cargando…

Free versus pedicled flaps for reconstruction of head and neck cancer defects: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: The present review focuses on comparative studies of reconstruction with free flaps (FF) versus pedicled flaps (PF) after oncologic resection. METHOD: A systematic review was developed in compliance with PRISMA guidelines and performed using the Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE, Amed and Biosis da...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gabrysz-Forget, Fanny, Tabet, Paul, Rahal, Akram, Bissada, Eric, Christopoulos, Apostolos, Ayad, Tareck
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6417188/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30871637
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40463-019-0334-y
_version_ 1783403516585312256
author Gabrysz-Forget, Fanny
Tabet, Paul
Rahal, Akram
Bissada, Eric
Christopoulos, Apostolos
Ayad, Tareck
author_facet Gabrysz-Forget, Fanny
Tabet, Paul
Rahal, Akram
Bissada, Eric
Christopoulos, Apostolos
Ayad, Tareck
author_sort Gabrysz-Forget, Fanny
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The present review focuses on comparative studies of reconstruction with free flaps (FF) versus pedicled flaps (PF) after oncologic resection. METHOD: A systematic review was developed in compliance with PRISMA guidelines and performed using the Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE, Amed and Biosis databases. RESULTS: A total of 30 articles were included. FF are associated with a longer operative time, a higher cost and a higher incidence of postoperative revisions compared to PF. FF are associated with a longer stay at the intensive care unit than the supraclavicular artery island flap (SCAIF) and with a more extended hospital stay compared to the submental island flap (SMIF). FF are associated with fewer infections and necrosis compared to the pectoralis major myocutaneous flap (PMMF). CONCLUSION: The comparison of both type of flaps is limited by the inherent design of the studies included. In sum, FF seem superior to the PMMF for several outcomes. SMIF and SCAIF compare favorably to FF for some specific indications achieving similar outcomes at a lower cost.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6417188
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64171882019-03-25 Free versus pedicled flaps for reconstruction of head and neck cancer defects: a systematic review Gabrysz-Forget, Fanny Tabet, Paul Rahal, Akram Bissada, Eric Christopoulos, Apostolos Ayad, Tareck J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Review OBJECTIVE: The present review focuses on comparative studies of reconstruction with free flaps (FF) versus pedicled flaps (PF) after oncologic resection. METHOD: A systematic review was developed in compliance with PRISMA guidelines and performed using the Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE, Amed and Biosis databases. RESULTS: A total of 30 articles were included. FF are associated with a longer operative time, a higher cost and a higher incidence of postoperative revisions compared to PF. FF are associated with a longer stay at the intensive care unit than the supraclavicular artery island flap (SCAIF) and with a more extended hospital stay compared to the submental island flap (SMIF). FF are associated with fewer infections and necrosis compared to the pectoralis major myocutaneous flap (PMMF). CONCLUSION: The comparison of both type of flaps is limited by the inherent design of the studies included. In sum, FF seem superior to the PMMF for several outcomes. SMIF and SCAIF compare favorably to FF for some specific indications achieving similar outcomes at a lower cost. BioMed Central 2019-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6417188/ /pubmed/30871637 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40463-019-0334-y Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Review
Gabrysz-Forget, Fanny
Tabet, Paul
Rahal, Akram
Bissada, Eric
Christopoulos, Apostolos
Ayad, Tareck
Free versus pedicled flaps for reconstruction of head and neck cancer defects: a systematic review
title Free versus pedicled flaps for reconstruction of head and neck cancer defects: a systematic review
title_full Free versus pedicled flaps for reconstruction of head and neck cancer defects: a systematic review
title_fullStr Free versus pedicled flaps for reconstruction of head and neck cancer defects: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Free versus pedicled flaps for reconstruction of head and neck cancer defects: a systematic review
title_short Free versus pedicled flaps for reconstruction of head and neck cancer defects: a systematic review
title_sort free versus pedicled flaps for reconstruction of head and neck cancer defects: a systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6417188/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30871637
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40463-019-0334-y
work_keys_str_mv AT gabryszforgetfanny freeversuspedicledflapsforreconstructionofheadandneckcancerdefectsasystematicreview
AT tabetpaul freeversuspedicledflapsforreconstructionofheadandneckcancerdefectsasystematicreview
AT rahalakram freeversuspedicledflapsforreconstructionofheadandneckcancerdefectsasystematicreview
AT bissadaeric freeversuspedicledflapsforreconstructionofheadandneckcancerdefectsasystematicreview
AT christopoulosapostolos freeversuspedicledflapsforreconstructionofheadandneckcancerdefectsasystematicreview
AT ayadtareck freeversuspedicledflapsforreconstructionofheadandneckcancerdefectsasystematicreview