Comparative evaluation in pharyngo-oesophageal reconstruction: radial forearm flap compared with jejunal flap. A 10-year experience
ABSTRACT We reviewed 109 consecutive patients with cancer of the hypopharynx or cervical oesophagus who underwent free flap transfer for immediate reconstruction after total pharyngolaryngo-oesophagectomy. The free flaps used were either free jejunal (n = 70) or radial forearm flaps (n = 39). Significantly more fistulas (3/70 compared with 15/39, p < 0.0001) and strictures (6/64 compared with 13/33, p = 0.0008) developed in the radial forearm than the jejunal flap group. However, functional donor site morbidity was minimal and there were no cases of total flap necrosis in the forearm flap group. We consider that the free jejunal flap should be the first choice for total reconstruction of pharyngo-oesophageal defects. However, the forearm flap is suitable for elderly, high risk patients, because it is less invasive and has minimal donor site morbidity, which facilitates early recovery.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The loss or stricture of the esophagus has a tremendous impact on daily life. Before the era of microsurgery, many patients had to rely on tube feeding from jejunostomy following failure of esophageal reconstruction with conventional methods. Since the application of microsurgery, almost all kinds of esophageal defects can be reconstructed successfully with microvascular transfer of jejunum, colon, and skin flaps. Microsurgery is also used to augment the blood supply for the pedicled colon and jejunum flaps. In 97.6% of cases, successful reconstruction has been achieved. The leakage rate and functional results are evaluated for each group. For the pharynx and cervical esophagus, jejunum is the best choice. For replacement of the thoracic esophagus, a pedicled colon flap is the first choice, but it can be supercharged with microvascular anastomoses to the neck vessels if necessary. We conclude that the microsurgical transfer of jejunum, colon, and skin flaps is a useful approach for reconstruction of the esophagus. With proper selection of the organ substitute and correct inset of the flap, it not only provides anatomical replacement, but also a superior functional result. Free jejunum flap transfer requires attention to flap length and duration of ischemia. Free colon flap transfer requires attention to arteriosclerotic changes and the vascular pattern. Free skin flaps require attention to leakage prevention. Semin. Surg. Oncol. 19:235-245, 2000.Seminars in Surgical Oncology 10/2000; 19(3):235-45. DOI:10.1002/1098-2388(200010/11)19:3<235::AID-SSU5>3.0.CO;2-M
- The Laryngoscope 04/2001; 111(3):544-7. DOI:10.1097/00005537-200103000-00030 · 2.03 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study evaluates the outcome of pharyngoesophageal reconstruction using radial forearm free flaps with regard to primary wound healing, speech, and swallowing in patients requiring laryngopharyngectomy. Retrospective review in the setting of a tertiary, referral, and academic center. Twenty patients underwent reconstruction of the pharyngoesophageal segment using fasciocutaneous radial forearm free flaps. All free flap transfers were successful. An oral diet was resumed in 85% of the patients after surgery. Postoperative pharyngocutaneous fistulas occurred in 4 patients (20%) with 3 resolving spontaneously. Distal strictures also occurred in 20% of the patients. Five patients who underwent tracheoesophageal puncture achieved useful speech. Advantages of radial forearm free flaps for microvascular pharyngoesophageal function include high flap reliability, limited donor site morbidity, larger vascular pedicle caliber, and the ability to achieve good quality tracheoesophageal speech. The swallowing outcome is similar to that achieved after jejunal flap pharyngoesophageal reconstruction. The main disadvantage of this technique relates to a moderately high incidence of pharyngocutaneous fistulas, which contributes to delayed oral intake in affected patients.The Laryngoscope 06/2001; 111(5):807-10. DOI:10.1097/00005537-200105000-00010 · 2.03 Impact Factor