Endoscopic precaruncular medial transorbital and endonasal multiport approaches to the contralateral skull base: a clinicoanatomical study.

OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive endoscopic endonasal multiport approaches create additional visualization angles to treat skull base pathologies. The sublabial contralateral transmaxillary (CTM) approach and superior eyelid lateral transorbital approach, frequently used nowadays, have been referred to as the "third port" when used alongside the endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA). The endoscopic precaruncular contralateral medial transorbital (cMTO) corridor, on the other hand, is an underrecognized but unique port that has been used to repair CSF rhinorrhea originating from the lateral sphenoid sinus recess. However, no anatomical feasibility studies or clinical experience exists to assess its benefits and demonstrate its potential role in multiport endoscopic access to the other contralateral skull base areas. In this study, the authors explored the application and potential utility of multiport EEA combined with the endoscopic cMTO approach (EEA/cMTO) to three target areas of the contralateral skull base: lateral recess of sphenoid sinus (LRSS), petrous apex (PA) and petroclival region, and retrocarotid clinoidocavernous space (CCS). METHODS: Ten cadaveric specimens (20 sides) were dissected bilaterally under stereotactic navigation guidance to access contralateral LRSS via EEA/cMTO. The PA and petroclival region and retrocarotid CCS were exposed via EEA alone, EEA/cMTO, and EEA combined with the sublabial CTM approach (EEA/CTM). Qualitative and quantitative assessments, including working distance and visualization angle to the PA, were recorded. Clinical application of EEA/cMTO is demonstrated in a lateral sphenoid sinus CSF leak repair. RESULTS: During the qualitative assessment, multiport EEA/cMTO provides superior visualization from a high vantage point and better instrument maneuverability than multiport EEA/CTM for the PA and retrocarotid CCS, while maintaining a similar lateral trajectory. The cMTO approach has significantly shorter working distances to all three target areas compared with the CTM approach and EEA. The mean distances to the LRSS, PA, and retrocarotid CCS were 50.69 ± 4.28 mm (p < 0.05), 67.11 ± 5.05 mm (p < 0.001), and 50.32 ± 3.6 mm (p < 0.001), respectively. The mean visualization angles to the PA obtained by multiport EEA/cMTO and EEA/CTM were 28.4° ± 3.27° and 24.42° ± 5.02° (p < 0.005), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Multiport EEA/cMTO to the contralateral LRSS offers the advantage of preserving the pterygopalatine fossa contents and the vidian nerve, which are frequently sacrificed during a transpterygoid approach. This approach also offers superior visualization and better instrument maneuverability compared with EEA/CTM for targeting the petroclival region and retrocarotid CCS.

The Two-Stage Folded Paramedian Forehead Flap Without Cartilage Grafts for Full Thickness Distal Nasal Defects: A Review of 35 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Full thickness defects of the ala, soft triangle, and nasal tip involving the nasal lining have traditionally been repaired with the three-stage folded paramedian forehead flap (FPFF), with a cartilage graft for support. For similar defects, the authors utilize the two-stage FPFF without cartilaginous support which provides reproducible functional and aesthetic results.  Objective: To describe the authors’ experience with the two-stage FPFF, including outcomes, complications, and design modifications to enhance functional and aesthetic success.  Methods: An IRB-approved retrospective database review of FPFF was performed at two sites. Using postoperative photographs, outcomes were assessed by blinded non-investigator dermatologist raters using a modified observer scar assessment scale. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were reconstructed using the two-stage FPFF without cartilage grafts. Subjective assessment of scar vascularity, pigment, relief, and thickness by 3 independent reviewers yielded an overall cosmesis score of 8.4±1.9 (out of 40). CONCLUSION: The two-stage FPFF without cartilage grafts is a reliable, cosmetically elegant repair that can provide optimal functional and aesthetic results for complex unilateral distal nose defects.J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(4): doi:10.36849/JDD.7358.

Decision Making in Nasal Reconstruction: When to Use the Forehead Flap?

In this review, the paramedian forehead flap indications and uses are reviewed, specifically examining clinical situations where patient selection is important. In these settings, a preoperative discussion with a patient regarding surgical expectations and goals in the setting of their defect is paramount. The authors review the literature regarding the psychosocial aspects of major nasal reconstruction and review preoperative discussion points that are key to a well-informed patient and improved patient satisfaction through the nasal reconstructive process.

Nasal Reconstruction of Large Defects Without a Forehead Flap.

Defects over 2.0 to 2.5 cm may often require repair with a multistaged forehead flap. However, in some such defects, other options may be available. In this article, the author will review some of these options.

Implications of Malignancy, Radiation, and Timing of Major Nasal Reconstruction.

Owing to the complex, multilayered anatomy of the nose in the central face, major nasal reconstruction can pose a significant challenge for reconstructive surgeons. It is the responsibility of reconstructive surgeons to have an understanding of the most common cutaneous malignancies and excisional techniques that may lead to complex nasal defects. The purpose of this article is to discuss these malignancies, excisional techniques, and impacts of radiation on tissue that has implications for reconstructive surgeons.

Nasal Lining Reconstruction with Prelaminated Forehead Flap.

A successful nasal reconstruction relies heavily on a stable internal lining. Larger defects pose unique challenges for internal lining reconstruction as obtaining tissue of adequate size while maintaining airway patency is difficult. The prelamination technique uses a staged skin graft to the paramedian forehead flap prior to transfer. As such, a composite flap can be later transferred to reconstruct internal and external nasal defects concomitantly. This article reviews the current background, techniques, and clinical considerations in the use of the prelaminated forehead flap for nasal lining reconstruction in partial to total nasal defects.

Total Nasal Reconstruction: Advances in Free Tissue Transfer for Internal Lining and Structural Support.

Total nasal reconstruction is a complex challenge due to the need to establish new internal lining, internal structural support, and external skin covering that is both functional and esthetic. The medial femoral condyle corticoperiosteal free flap represents an innovative option for restoration internal structure and internal nasal lining. When used in conjunction with a paramedian forehead flap, acceptable results in both function and esthetics can be achieved.

Approach to Major Nasal Reconstruction: Benefits of Staged Surgery and Use of Technology.

This article reviews special considerations in complex nasal defects including treatment of adjacent subunit defects, timing of repair with radiation, reconstruction in patients with prior repairs or recurrent disease, and the role of prosthetics. The role of technological advances including virtual surgical planning, 3 dimensional printing, biocompatible materials, and tissue engineering is discussed.

Structural Support for Large to Total Nasal Reconstruction.

When large defects of the nose are present, it is imperative to address all 3 layers: the external skin envelope, the osteocartilaginous support, and the inner mucosal lining. The middle structural framework is the primary factor in determining the overall shape of the nose, in addition to facilitating a functional and patent airway. As such, its reconstruction must be robust enough to provide lasting osteocartilaginous support while minimizing disfiguring bulk. The goal is replacement of missing tissue with grafts of similar strength, size, and shape. This article will review approaches to the reconstruction of structural support in large nasal defects.

Nuances in Forehead Flap Reconstruction for Large Nasal Defects.

The forehead flap is a time-tested and robust resurfacing flap used for nasal reconstruction. Owing to its excellent color and texture match, acceptable donor site morbidity, and robust and independent blood supply that can support both structural and internal lining grafts, this flap remains the workhorse flap for resurfacing large nasal defects. Various nuances of this technique relating to defect and template preparation, flap design, flap elevation, flap inset, donor site closure, and pedicle division are discussed in this article. These nuances are the guiding principles for improved outcomes using a forehead flap for the reconstruction of large nasal defects.

Nasal Lining Reconstruction with Loco-regional Flaps.

The reliability of local intranasal flaps speaks to the robust vascularity of the nose, which these flaps are based on. The goals for lining replacement, as in any other area of head and neck reconstruction, is to use tissue that best matches the qualities of what is being replaced. The goal of this review is to describe the extent to which local tissues can be used and when to consider regional flaps when the extent of a local flap will not provide enough coverage.

Reconstruction of Large Composite Defects Extending Beyond the Nose.

Nasal reconstruction remains one of the most challenging surgeries for facial plastic and reconstructive surgeons. The addition of defects extending beyond the nose adds a layer of complexity to an already technically demanding surgery. This article will focus on the management of composite defects extending beyond the boundaries of the nose. Surgeons need to have a variety of techniques at their disposal. These complex defects often require multiple local flaps, multiple stages, and, in select cases, free tissue transfer.

Management of Traumatic Nasal Avulsion Injuries.

Soft tissue injuries to the midface (and nose) are common causes for seeking trauma care. As trauma patients, observing advanced trauma life support protocols is warranted given the risk of concomitant injuries. Here, options for optimizing tissue preservation, microvascular replantation, non-microvascular tissue replacement, and wound stabilization are discussed. Included in this discussion are data-driven predictors for successful replantation as well as technique descriptions with anatomic references to guide surgeons in choosing optimal donor vessels. In both partial and complete avulsion injuries, venous congestion is common. Several postoperative wound care protocols to maximize tissue perfusion and long-term viability are discussed.

Revision Nasal Reconstruction After Previous Forehead Flap.

Reconstructing the nose poses considerable challenges, even for the most skilled surgeons. Significant nasal reconstructions often require later revisions to address persistent issues in both form and function, and it is crucial to discuss this possibility with the patient before embarking on the reconstructive process. Minor revisions can often be managed by making direct incisions between nasal subunits, coupled with soft tissue sculpting or the use of structural grafts for augmentation. When minor adjustments prove insufficient, the initial reconstruction may need to be entirely revised with a second forehead flap.

Prosthetic Nasal Reconstruction.

Prosthetic nasal reconstruction provides a restorative option for patients with nasal defects, and these can be retained with a variety of methods including adhesives and implants. These prostheses can significantly improve appearance, self-esteem, and quality of life for patients and they restore many functions of the external nose. Traditional fabrication methods are often used by the skilled professionals who make these custom prostheses, but digital technology is improving the workflow for design and fabrication of silicone nasal prostheses. Nasal prosthetic reconstruction requires multidisciplinary coordination between surgeons, maxillofacial prosthodontists, anaplastologists, and other members of the healthcare team. Prosthetic treatment can be considered as an alternative to, or an addition to treatment with surgical reconstruction.