Supraclavicular Artery Island Flap (SCAIF) vs Free Fasciocutaneous Flaps for Head and Neck Reconstruction

Abstract

Objective

At our institution, the supraclavicular artery island flap (SCAIF) has become a reliable option for fasciocutaneous coverage of complex head and neck (H&N) defects. We directly compare the outcomes of reconstructions performed with SCAIFs and free fasciocutaneous flaps (FFFs), which have not been reported previously.

Study Design

Retrospective chart review.

Setting

Tertiary academic medical center.

Subjects and Methods

Retrospective review of consecutive single-surgeon H&N reconstructions using fasciocutaneous flaps over 5 years. Reconstructions were divided into 2 groups: SCAIFs and FFFs. Patient demographics, surgical parameters, and outcomes were compared statistically between groups.

Results

Thirty-four flaps were used in H&N reconstruction (18 SCAIFs and 16 FFFs). There was no difference in patient demographics, distribution of defects, or follow-up (SCAIF 9.2 vs FFF 15.13 months, P = .65) between the 2 groups. The SCAIFs were larger than the FFFs (164.6 ± 60 vs 111 ± 68 cm², P < .05) and had shorter total operative times (588 ± 131 vs 816 ± 149 minutes, P < .05). Intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay was shorter for the SCAIF vs the FFF group (1.8 vs 5.6 days, P < .05). Overall morbidity was not significantly different (SCAIF 39% vs FFF 44%, P = NS).

Conclusion

The SCAIF is a technically simpler and equally reliable sensate fasciocutaneous flap for H&N reconstruction with comparable outcomes, shorter operative time, less ICU stay, and no need for postoperative monitoring when compared with using FFFs. It should be considered a first-choice reconstructive option for complex H&N defects.

Keywords

supraclavicular artery island flap shoulder flap pedicled flaps free fasciocutaneous flaps head and neck reconstruction outcomes

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Gurtner

Evans

GRD

. Advances in head and neck reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;106:672-683.

Granzow

Suliman

Roostaeian

Perry

Boyd

. The supraclavicular artery island flap (SCAIF) for head and neck reconstruction: surgical technique and refinements. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. In press.

Chui

Liu

Baratelli

Lee MY

Chaffin

Friedlander

. Circumferential pharyngoesophageal reconstruction with a supraclavicular artery island flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:161-166.

Chiu

Lui

Friedlander

. Supraclavicular artery island flap for head and neck oncologic reconstruction: indications, complications, and outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:115-123.

Di Benedetto

Aquinati

Balercia

Forlini

Bertani

. Supraclavicular island fascial flap in the treatment of progressive hemifacial atrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121:247e-250e.

Vinh

Anh

Ogawa

Hyakusoku

. Anatomical and clinical studies of the supraclavicular flap: analysis of 103 flaps used to reconstruct neck scar contractures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:1471-1480.

Epps

Cannon

Wright

. Aesthetic restoration of parotidectomy contour deformity using the supraclavicular artery island flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:1925-1931.

Pallua

Wolter

. Defect classification and reconstruction algorithm for patients with tracheostomy using the tunneled supraclavicular artery island flap. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2010;395:1115-1119.

Anand

Tran

Hasney

Friedlander

Chiu

. Oropharyngeal reconstruction using the supraclavicular artery island flap: a new flap alternative. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:438-441.

10.

Sandu

Monnier

Pasche

. Supraclavicular flap in head and neck reconstruction: experience in 50 consecutive patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;269:1261-1267.

11.

Kazanjian

Converse

. The Surgical Treatment of Facial Injuries. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1949.

12.

Lamberty

Cormack

. Misconceptions regarding the cervico-humeral flap. Br J Plast Surg. 1983;36:60-63.

13.

Pallua

Noah

. The tunneled supraclavicular island flap: an optimized technique for head and neck reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:842-851.

14.

Chan

JWH

Wong

Ward

Saint-Cyr

Chiu

. Three- and four-dimensional computed angiography studies of the supraclavicular artery island flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:525-531.

15.

Blevins

Luce

. Limitations of the cervicohumeral flap in head and neck reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1980;66:220-224.

16.

Di Benedetto

Aquinati

Pierangeli

. From the “charretera” to the supraclavicular fascial island flap: revisitation and further evolution of a controversial flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;115:70-76.

17.

Murray

Novak

Nelgian

. Fasciocutaneous free flaps in pharyngolaryngo-oesophageal reconstruction: a critical review of the literature. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2008;61:1148-1156.

18.

Wan

Gabbay

Levi

Boyd

Granzow

. Quality of innervation in sensate medial plantar flaps for heal reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:723-730.

19.

Sands

Martin

Simms

Henderson

Friedlander

Chiu

. Supraclavicular artery island flap innervation: anatomical studies and clinical implications. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg, 2012;65:68-71.

20.

Mallet

Bedoui

Penel

Van

Fournier

Lefebvre

. The free vascularized flap and the pectoralis major pedicled flap options: comparative results of reconstruction of the tongue. Oral Oncol. 2009;45:1028-1031.

21.

de Bree

Reith

Quak

Uyl-de Groot

van Agthoven

Leemans

. Free radial forearm flap versus pectoralis major myocutaneous flap reconstruction of oral and oropharyngeal defects: a cost analysis. Clin Otolaryngol. 2007;32:275-282.

22.

Smeele

Goldstein

Tsai

. Morbidity and cost difference between free flaps and pedicled myocutaneous flaps in head & neck reconstruction. J Otolaryngol. 2006;35:102-107.

23.

Paydarfar

Patel

. Submental island pedicled flap vs radial forearm free flap for oral reconstruction comparison of outcomes. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;137:82-87.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB