Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size Users Online: 213
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 21  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 85-90

Regional myocutaneous flaps for head and neck reconstruction: Experience of a head and neck cancer unit

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Regional Head and Neck Cancer Division, LASUCOM/LASUTH, Lagos, Nigeria

Correspondence Address:
Eyituoyo Okoturo
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Regional Head and Neck Cancer Division, LASUCOM/LASUTH, Lagos
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/1117-6806.162568

Rights and Permissions

Background: Pectoralis major myocutaneous pedicle flap and other regional myocutaneous pedicle flaps (RMF), despite the superiority shown by free flaps, have remained relevant in the reconstruction of major head and neck oncologic defects. It has continued to find relevance as the preferred reconstruction of choice in some general head and neck reconstructive applications. While its role has been defined in developed environment, the same cannot be said for developing environment. The aim thus, was to review our experiences with RMFs in head and neck reconstructions, with a view to evaluating the indications and outcomes in a limited opportunity environment with some free flaps expertise. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study from records of RMF cases performed for head and neck reconstruction, at the study institution. Eligibility for study inclusion comprised case cohorts with advanced head and neck diseases requiring ablative surgery and reconstruction with pectoralis major flaps and other RMFs. Results: A total of 17 cases were treated with RMFs. 10 were pectoralis major flaps while 7 were other RMFs. The main indications were failed free flaps and financial constraints. No regional pedicle flap failure was recorded; however, complication rate was 35.5% (6/17). Conclusion: Pectoralis major flaps and other RMFs were very reliable option for head and neck reconstruction. Free flap failure and financial constraints were the main indications for RMF reconstruction indications in head and neck reconstruction in a developing environment with some free flap expertise.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded130    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal