Outcomes of Centrally versus Laterally Based Tarsoconjunctival Pedicle Flap Reconstruction for Large, Full-Thickness Lower Eyelid Defects.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Plastic and reconstructive surgery Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-06 DOI:10.1097/PRS.0000000000011522
Zvi Gur, Alison Chan, Michelle Ting, Ramzi Alameddine, Catherine Y Liu, Bobby S Korn, Don O Kikkawa
{"title":"Outcomes of Centrally versus Laterally Based Tarsoconjunctival Pedicle Flap Reconstruction for Large, Full-Thickness Lower Eyelid Defects.","authors":"Zvi Gur, Alison Chan, Michelle Ting, Ramzi Alameddine, Catherine Y Liu, Bobby S Korn, Don O Kikkawa","doi":"10.1097/PRS.0000000000011522","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of 2 types of tarsoconjunctival pedicle flaps for reconstruction of large lower eyelid defects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors performed a retrospective medical record review of consecutive patients who underwent centrally or laterally based tarsoconjunctival pedicle transconjunctival flap for lower eyelid reconstruction for defects greater than 50% of the lid margin. Full-thickness skin grafts were used for anterior lamellar reconstruction in all cases. The primary outcome measure was eyelid position, function, and satisfactory appearance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 43 patients were identified. Twenty-six patients underwent reconstruction with a centrally based tarsoconjunctival pedicle flap; 17 patients underwent reconstruction with a laterally based tarsoconjunctival pedicle flap. The average size of the lid defect was 77.7% (range, 50% to 100%) in the central group and 75% (range, 50% to 100%) in the lateral group ( P = 0.604). Mean follow-up time was 61.5 weeks in the central group and 46.6 weeks in the lateral group ( P = 0.765). After division of the flap and during follow-up, 27% of the centrally based group required revisional surgery, versus none in the laterally based group ( P = 0.03). All the patients with centrally based flaps required second-stage flap division, whereas only 52% of patients with a laterally based flap underwent second-stage flap division ( P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For reconstruction of large lower lid defects requiring lid-sharing procedures, centrally and laterally based procedures had equivalent functional outcome, but the laterally based group had less need for revisional procedures and may not need a second-stage division of the flap.</p><p><strong>Clinical question/level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic, III.</p>","PeriodicalId":20128,"journal":{"name":"Plastic and reconstructive surgery","volume":" ","pages":"168-174"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic and reconstructive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000011522","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of 2 types of tarsoconjunctival pedicle flaps for reconstruction of large lower eyelid defects.

Methods: The authors performed a retrospective medical record review of consecutive patients who underwent centrally or laterally based tarsoconjunctival pedicle transconjunctival flap for lower eyelid reconstruction for defects greater than 50% of the lid margin. Full-thickness skin grafts were used for anterior lamellar reconstruction in all cases. The primary outcome measure was eyelid position, function, and satisfactory appearance.

Results: A total of 43 patients were identified. Twenty-six patients underwent reconstruction with a centrally based tarsoconjunctival pedicle flap; 17 patients underwent reconstruction with a laterally based tarsoconjunctival pedicle flap. The average size of the lid defect was 77.7% (range, 50% to 100%) in the central group and 75% (range, 50% to 100%) in the lateral group ( P = 0.604). Mean follow-up time was 61.5 weeks in the central group and 46.6 weeks in the lateral group ( P = 0.765). After division of the flap and during follow-up, 27% of the centrally based group required revisional surgery, versus none in the laterally based group ( P = 0.03). All the patients with centrally based flaps required second-stage flap division, whereas only 52% of patients with a laterally based flap underwent second-stage flap division ( P < 0.001).

Conclusion: For reconstruction of large lower lid defects requiring lid-sharing procedures, centrally and laterally based procedures had equivalent functional outcome, but the laterally based group had less need for revisional procedures and may not need a second-stage division of the flap.

Clinical question/level of evidence: Therapeutic, III.

大面积全厚下眼睑缺损的跗骨结膜蒂皮瓣重建术的中心与侧向对比结果。
背景:比较两种跗结膜蒂皮瓣用于下眼睑大面积缺损重建的效果:比较两种跗结膜蒂皮瓣重建下眼睑大面积缺损的效果:方法:回顾性病历检查连续接受中央型或侧方型跗结膜蒂经结膜瓣重建下眼睑的患者,这些患者的下眼睑缺损超过睑缘的 50%。所有病例均采用全厚植皮进行前部板层重建。主要结果是眼睑位置、功能和外观满意度:结果:共发现 43 例患者。结果:共确定了 43 例患者,其中 26 例患者采用了中央跗结膜蒂皮瓣进行重建,17 例患者采用了侧面跗结膜蒂皮瓣进行重建。中央组患者睑缺损的平均大小为 77.7%(范围为 50-100%),外侧组患者睑缺损的平均大小为 75%(范围为 50-100%)(P=0.604)。中央组的平均随访时间为 61.5 周,外侧组为 46.6 周(P=0.765)。在皮瓣分割后和随访期间,中央组有27%的患者需要进行翻修手术,而侧面组则没有(P=0.03)。100%的中央皮瓣患者需要进行皮瓣二期分割,而只有52%的侧方皮瓣患者进行了皮瓣二期分割。结论结果表明,对于需要进行睑共享手术的大面积下睑缺损的重建,中央型和侧向型手术的功能效果相当。不过,侧位手术组对翻修手术的需求较少,可能不需要对皮瓣进行二期分割。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
13.90%
发文量
1436
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: For more than 70 years Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® has been the one consistently excellent reference for every specialist who uses plastic surgery techniques or works in conjunction with a plastic surgeon. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® , the official journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, is a benefit of Society membership, and is also available on a subscription basis. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® brings subscribers up-to-the-minute reports on the latest techniques and follow-up for all areas of plastic and reconstructive surgery, including breast reconstruction, experimental studies, maxillofacial reconstruction, hand and microsurgery, burn repair, cosmetic surgery, as well as news on medicolegal issues. The cosmetic section provides expanded coverage on new procedures and techniques and offers more cosmetic-specific content than any other journal. All subscribers enjoy full access to the Journal''s website, which features broadcast quality videos of reconstructive and cosmetic procedures, podcasts, comprehensive article archives dating to 1946, and additional benefits offered by the newly-redesigned website.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信