Free versus pedicled flaps for reconstruction of head and neck cancer defects: a systematic review

Abstract Objective The present review focuses on comparative studies of reconstruction with free flaps (FF) versus pedicled flaps (PF) after oncologic resection. Method A systematic review was developed in compliance with PRISMA guidelines and performed using the Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE, Amed and Bi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Fanny Gabrysz-Forget, Paul Tabet, Akram Rahal, Eric Bissada, Apostolos Christopoulos, Tareck Ayad
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2019-03-01
Series:Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40463-019-0334-y
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832544132400152576
author Fanny Gabrysz-Forget
Paul Tabet
Akram Rahal
Eric Bissada
Apostolos Christopoulos
Tareck Ayad
author_facet Fanny Gabrysz-Forget
Paul Tabet
Akram Rahal
Eric Bissada
Apostolos Christopoulos
Tareck Ayad
author_sort Fanny Gabrysz-Forget
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Objective The present review focuses on comparative studies of reconstruction with free flaps (FF) versus pedicled flaps (PF) after oncologic resection. Method A systematic review was developed in compliance with PRISMA guidelines and performed using the Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE, Amed and Biosis databases. Results A total of 30 articles were included. FF are associated with a longer operative time, a higher cost and a higher incidence of postoperative revisions compared to PF. FF are associated with a longer stay at the intensive care unit than the supraclavicular artery island flap (SCAIF) and with a more extended hospital stay compared to the submental island flap (SMIF). FF are associated with fewer infections and necrosis compared to the pectoralis major myocutaneous flap (PMMF). Conclusion The comparison of both type of flaps is limited by the inherent design of the studies included. In sum, FF seem superior to the PMMF for several outcomes. SMIF and SCAIF compare favorably to FF for some specific indications achieving similar outcomes at a lower cost.
format Article
id doaj-art-71b1bb74c78240568b28256a86218677
institution Kabale University
issn 1916-0216
language English
publishDate 2019-03-01
publisher SAGE Publishing
record_format Article
series Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
spelling doaj-art-71b1bb74c78240568b28256a862186772025-02-03T10:54:11ZengSAGE PublishingJournal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery1916-02162019-03-0148113110.1186/s40463-019-0334-yFree versus pedicled flaps for reconstruction of head and neck cancer defects: a systematic reviewFanny Gabrysz-Forget0Paul Tabet1Akram Rahal2Eric Bissada3Apostolos Christopoulos4Tareck Ayad5Faculty of Medicine, Université de MontrealFaculty of Medicine, Université de MontrealDivision of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery service, Université de MontréalDivision of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery service, Université de MontréalDivision of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery service, Université de MontréalDivision of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery service, Université de MontréalAbstract Objective The present review focuses on comparative studies of reconstruction with free flaps (FF) versus pedicled flaps (PF) after oncologic resection. Method A systematic review was developed in compliance with PRISMA guidelines and performed using the Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE, Amed and Biosis databases. Results A total of 30 articles were included. FF are associated with a longer operative time, a higher cost and a higher incidence of postoperative revisions compared to PF. FF are associated with a longer stay at the intensive care unit than the supraclavicular artery island flap (SCAIF) and with a more extended hospital stay compared to the submental island flap (SMIF). FF are associated with fewer infections and necrosis compared to the pectoralis major myocutaneous flap (PMMF). Conclusion The comparison of both type of flaps is limited by the inherent design of the studies included. In sum, FF seem superior to the PMMF for several outcomes. SMIF and SCAIF compare favorably to FF for some specific indications achieving similar outcomes at a lower cost.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40463-019-0334-yFlapsOncologyReconstructionSurgeryOutcomes
spellingShingle Fanny Gabrysz-Forget
Paul Tabet
Akram Rahal
Eric Bissada
Apostolos Christopoulos
Tareck Ayad
Free versus pedicled flaps for reconstruction of head and neck cancer defects: a systematic review
Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Flaps
Oncology
Reconstruction
Surgery
Outcomes
title Free versus pedicled flaps for reconstruction of head and neck cancer defects: a systematic review
title_full Free versus pedicled flaps for reconstruction of head and neck cancer defects: a systematic review
title_fullStr Free versus pedicled flaps for reconstruction of head and neck cancer defects: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Free versus pedicled flaps for reconstruction of head and neck cancer defects: a systematic review
title_short Free versus pedicled flaps for reconstruction of head and neck cancer defects: a systematic review
title_sort free versus pedicled flaps for reconstruction of head and neck cancer defects a systematic review
topic Flaps
Oncology
Reconstruction
Surgery
Outcomes
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40463-019-0334-y
work_keys_str_mv AT fannygabryszforget freeversuspedicledflapsforreconstructionofheadandneckcancerdefectsasystematicreview
AT paultabet freeversuspedicledflapsforreconstructionofheadandneckcancerdefectsasystematicreview
AT akramrahal freeversuspedicledflapsforreconstructionofheadandneckcancerdefectsasystematicreview
AT ericbissada freeversuspedicledflapsforreconstructionofheadandneckcancerdefectsasystematicreview
AT apostoloschristopoulos freeversuspedicledflapsforreconstructionofheadandneckcancerdefectsasystematicreview
AT tareckayad freeversuspedicledflapsforreconstructionofheadandneckcancerdefectsasystematicreview