Total lower-eyelid reconstruction: Modified Fricke's cheek flap

Department of Surgery, Instituto Dermatológico de Jalisco Dr. José Barba Rubio Secretaria de Salud Jalisco, Guadalajara, Mexico.
Journal of Plastic Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery (Impact Factor: 1.42). 07/2011; 64(11):1430-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2011.06.044
Source: PubMed


The present work reviews a total lower-eyelid reconstruction technique that is currently not widely in use but which, in some cases, has proven to be of great utility in the field of reconstructive plastic surgery of the palpebral area. We performed an observational, longitudinal, descriptive and retrospective follow-up study. A total of 34 cases of non-melanoma skin cancer in which the lower eyelid was completely reconstructed using one flap taken from the cheek (modified Fricke's cheek flap) were reviewed. The follow-up time for the patients ranged from several months to 5 years. Analysis was performed using the Pearson's chi-square statistical test in an effort to examine the association between the technique's range of functionality and aesthetic variables. Results were considered significant with a p<0.05. The functional result was regular for 91.2%, poor for 8.8% and excellent for 0% (p<0.05). The aesthetic result was regular for 88.2%, poor for 11.8% and excellent for 0% (p<0.05). The main complications were scleral exposure and temporary ocular chemosis. Fricke's lower cheek flap is an easy-to-perform, important and often-necessary technique that, in some cases, has yielded positive functional and aesthetic results. This procedure is performed on an outpatient basis and is optimal for aged patients who present with skin cancer and who require total lower-eyelid reconstruction. The use of this technique is associated with a low complication rate and low morbidity.

22 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The main complications of this type of lower lid reconstruction are lash loss or malposition, entropion of the upper lid, upper lid retraction, undue laxity of the lower lid, and lid margin deformities. These can all be avioded by meticulous attention to surgical details and dressing techniques. I believe that this is the best and simplest method of providing a lid of acceptable function and appearance. The advantages of this type of operation are: (1) The new lower lid is constructed of lid tissue including the tarsus and conjunctiva from the upper lid. (2) The function and appearance of the new lower lid are acceptable with practically no tendency to late retraction. (3) The function and appearance of the upper lid need not be interfered with. (4) No external scars are produced except when a lash transplant is done. This transplant leaves a small, hardly noticeable scar in the lower part of the opposite brow. (5) The technique is relatively simple and well within the realm of any well-trained ophthalmic surgeon. The obvious disadvantages are the surgeon's inability to inspect the eye for two to four months and the inconvenience to the patient of having one eye closed for such a long period of time.
    Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society 02/1976; 74:321-9.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Learning Objectives: After studying this article, the participant should be able to: I. Compare and contrast the original Hughes nap to its subsequent modifications. 2. Understand the importance of preserving the inferior portion of the upper eyelid tarsal plate at the donor site. 3. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of buttonholing the pedicled tarsoconjunctival flap. 4. Summarize the various methods of dividing the pedicled tarsoconjunctival flap. 5. State the indications for a free tarsoconjunctival graft. 6. Review the technique required to perform a free tarsoconjunctival graft for lower eyelid full-thickness defect reconstruction.
    Plastic &amp Reconstructive Surgery 09/1999; 104(2):518-22; quiz 523; discussion 524-6. DOI:10.1097/00006534-199908000-00033 · 2.99 Impact Factor
  • Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 11/2005; 116(5):76e-82e; discussion 83e-84e. DOI:10.1097/01.prs.0000182373.61971.b8 · 2.99 Impact Factor
Show more


22 Reads
Available from