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.

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.

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.

Prevention and Management of Complications in Nasal Reconstruction.

Nasal reconstruction is a challenging practice with the potential for complications. Surgeons can prevent complications through preoperative optimization of patient factors, refinement of intraoperative surgical techniques, and postoperative surgical and nonsurgical wound care. Preoperatively, optimization of modifiable and recognition of nonmodifiable risk factors is paramount. Intraoperatively, meticulous flap design and surgical technique promote healing. In the postoperative setting, attentive wound care, adjuvant therapies, and close follow-up for consideration of additional procedures enhance outcomes. By anticipating potential complications across perioperative settings, surgeons can prevent common complications in nasal reconstruction and more effectively manage those complications that arise.

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.

Repair of Asian nasal subunit defects using nasolabial perforator flaps: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The application of nasolabial perforator flap for nasal reconstruction has been reported previously with satisfactory outcomes, but the outcomes and risk factors of postoperative adverse events have been unclear to plastic surgeons. AIMS: To statistically analyze the effectiveness of the nasolabial perforator flap in nasal reconstruction and the risk factor of postoperative complications and re-operation. PATIENTS/METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated 58 Chinese patients who underwent nasal reconstruction with the nasolabial perforator flap from 2009 to 2021. The esthetic and blood supply outcomes were measured by plastic surgeons on a 5-point Likert scale. Binary logistic regression was used to determine the risk factors associated with postoperative complications and re-operation. RESULTS: The mean age of the cohort was 66.4 ± 2.0 years. The defect size ranged from 6.5 × 5.5 mm2 to 40 × 70 mm2 , and 48.3% of defects covered more than one nasal subunit. Venous congestion occurred in 4.9% of flaps, and the immediate overall postoperative score was 7.72/10. More than one nasal subunit of involvement was the risk factor associated with re-operation (p = 0.004), but no risk factor was associated with complications. CONCLUSIONS: The nasolabial perforator flap is reliable for nasal reconstruction with good esthetic outcomes and fewer complications. However, a large number of involved subunits may lead to multiple surgeries for flap trimming in easterners.

Hair follicle extraction combined with an expanded scalp flap for facial organ reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Use of scalp skin for facial organ reconstruction represents a mainstream procedure for organ reconstruction. In most cases, adequate amounts of skin can be obtained by using tissue expanders, but harvesting sufficient scalp tissue in patients with low hairlines is challenging. Hair follicular unit extraction (FUE) is one approach to resolve this problem. With FUE, hair follicles are removed from the scalp skin, which can then be prepared as a donor site to obtain sufficient amounts of hairless skin. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of FUE when combined with an expanded scalp flap for facial organ reconstruction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with low hairlines requiring facial organ reconstruction were selected for this study. The area of skin extension and hair removal were determined prior to surgery, a process which was performed in three stages. Stage I consisted of hair follicle removal using the FUE technique at the donor site. Stage II involved expander implantation using water injections. In Stage III facial organ reconstruction was completed. RESULTS: With the use of the FUE technique, hair follicles from the donor scalp were thoroughly removed and the donor scalp tissue was successfully expanded. Postoperatively, no evident scar formation at the reconstruction site or contracture of the expanded flap was observed. All patients were satisfied with the outcome of their reconstruction procedure. CONCLUSION: FUE provides a means for hair follicle removal from the donor site and can be employed to achieve a safe and effective procedure for facial reconstruction in patients with low hairlines.

A Rotation Alar Fold Flap for Cosmetic Nasal Plane Reconstruction: Description of the Technique and Outcome in Three Dogs.

Nasal planum reconstruction is a surgical challenge, and several surgical techniques have been described. The objective of this study was to describe the rotation alar fold flap technique and to report clinical outcomes in a short case series. The feasibility of the technique was first assessed in a canine cadaveric model. The rotation alar fold flap was obtained by a single sharp horizontal incision of the dorsolateral nasal cartilage, preserving the caudal mucosal attachment to the ventral nasal concha. The flap was then rotated ventro-medially for the reconstruction of the ventral aspect of the nasal planum unilaterally or bilaterally. The rotation alar fold flap technique was used following a subtotal or partial planectomy for excision of a squamous cell carcinoma or mast cell tumors in three dogs. No intraoperative complications were recorded. Superficial surgical site infection was reported in two cases and minor dehiscence was reported in one case. However, survival of the flap was not affected. The cosmetic and functional outcomes were considered very satisfactory in all cases. The rotation alar fold flap technique offers a safe, valuable, feasible, functional and aesthetically satisfactory alternative surgical option for selected cases of localized tumor involving the central and ventral planum.

A Retrospective Study on the Reconstruction of Nasal Septal Mucosal Defects after Asian Rhinoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Nasal septal mucosal defects following rhinoplasty in Asian patients are uncommon complications. However, the reconstruction of such defects presents a challenging task in plastic surgery. The aim of this study was to present comprehensive surgical strategies for the reconstruction of nasal septal mucosal defect after rhinoplasty. METHODS: Thirteen cases presenting with nasal septal mucosal defects between January 2016 and October 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The size, location, and severity of the defect as well as the extent of cartilage exposure were taken into consideration during evaluation, and surgical approaches were employed for repair accordingly. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a questionnaire with visual analog scale (VAS) and nasal obstruction symptom evaluation scale (NOSE). RESULTS: The average postoperative follow-up period in this study group was 10.15 months. Reconstruction of nasal septal mucosal defects resulted in successful treatment for all patients. There was no evidence of flap failure or nasal valve stenosis. All patients were satisfied with the reconstruction outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The successful application of surgical techniques for nasal septal mucosal defects after rhinoplasty requires comprehensive consideration. The utilization of the retrograde-flow superior labial artery mucosal flap appears to be a secure, efficient, and effective technique for nasal septal mucosal defect reconstruction in rhinoplasty, particularly in cases with cartilage exposure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .