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.
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.