Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2015; 31(09): 688-691
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1558430
Letter to the Editor: Short Report
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Usefulness of a Reconstructive Method for Oropharyngeal Defect Including the Larger Soft Palate with the Bent Anterolateral Thigh Flap

Atsumori Hamahata
1   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Saitama Cancer Center, Saitama, Japan
,
Takeshi Beppu
2   Division of Head and Neck Surgery, Saitama Cancer Center, Saitama, Japan
,
Taro Fujikawa
2   Division of Head and Neck Surgery, Saitama Cancer Center, Saitama, Japan
,
Takashi Yamaki
3   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Hiroyuki Sakurai
3   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

19 February 2015

11 June 2015

Publication Date:
10 August 2015 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

For soft palate defects of less than two-thirds, a velopharyngoplasty using lateral and posterior pharyngeal flaps called the “Gehanno method” is suggested as one of the most reliable techniques.[1] However, for larger-sized soft defects the lateral pharyngeal flap cannot be sutured to the nasal soft palate, so this method cannot be simply applied to soft palate defects of more than two-thirds.

We modified the Gehanno method and applied it to soft palate defects of more than two-thirds and treated eight patients using the new method, examining their outcomes and complications after 6 months postoperation.

 

  • References

  • 1 Kimata Y, Uchiyama K, Sakuraba M , et al. Velopharyngeal function after microsurgical reconstruction of lateral and superior oropharyngeal defects. Laryngoscope 2002; 112 (6) 1037-1042
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hashikawa K, Tahara S, Terashi H , et al. Positive narrowing pharyngoplasty with forearm flap for functional restoration after extensive soft palate resection. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 115 (2) 388-393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Seikaly H, Rieger J, Wolfaardt J, Moysa G, Harris J, Jha N. Functional outcomes after primary oropharyngeal cancer resection and reconstruction with the radial forearm free flap. Laryngoscope 2003; 113 (5) 897-904
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Seikaly H, Rieger J, Zalmanowitz J , et al. Functional soft palate reconstruction: a comprehensive surgical approach. Head Neck 2008; 30 (12) 1615-1623
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Chepeha DB, Sacco AG, Erickson VR , et al. Oropharyngoplasty with template-based reconstruction of oropharynx defects. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009; 135 (9) 887-894
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Inoue T, Nagata M, Yukawa H , et al. Evaluation of postoperative function in patients undergoing reconstruction following resection of superior and lateral oropharyngeal cancer: long-term outcomes of reconstruction with the Gehanno method. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 41 (1) 9-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Yamaguchi K, Kimata Y, Onoda S, Mizukawa N, Onoda T. Quantitative analysis of free flap volume changes in head and neck reconstruction. Head Neck 2012; 34 (10) 1403-1407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sakamoto Y, Takahara T, Ota Y , et al. MRI analysis of chronological changes in free-flap volume in head and neck reconstruction by volumetry. Tokai J Exp Clin Med 2014; 39 (1) 44-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar