Advertisement

European Journal of Plastic Surgery

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 505–508 | Cite as

A novel technique for the safe transfer of the pedicle of a free flap in head and neck reconstruction using a nasopharyngeal airway connected to a negative pressure suction

  • Tamir Shay
  • Lior Har-ShaiEmail author
  • Dean D. Ad-El
  • Aharon Amir
Ideas and Innovations
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

Microsurgical free flaps are the accepted standard of care for head and neck reconstruction after tumor resection. In many cases, the pedicle of the free flap needs to be tunneled under bone and/or soft tissues to reach the recipient vessels in the site of anastomosis, most often located in the neck. Passing the pedicle through the dissected tunnel is always a blind procedure that increases the risk of shearing, turning, twisting, or kinking and in the worst case disconnection. We hereby demonstrate a novel and simple technique for a safe delivery of the pedicle to the anastomosis site in the neck using a nasopharyngeal airway (nasal airway) connected to negative pressure suction. In all of our cases, no complications were noted during the pedicle delivery to the neck while using this method.

Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Keywords

Free flap pedicle Pedicle tunneling Pedicle transfer Nasal airway tube Negative pressure suction Head and neck reconstruction 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

None

Conflict of interest

Shay Tamir MD, Har-Shai Lior MD, Ad-El Dean D. MD, and Amir Aharon MD declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Lo SL, Yen YH, Lee PJ, Liu CC, Pu CM (2017) Factors influencing postoperative complications in reconstructive microsurgery for head and neck cancer. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 75(4):867–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wong CH, Wei FC (2010) Microsurgical free flap in head and neck reconstruction. Head Neck 32(9):1236–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moschella F, D’Arpa S, Di Lorenzo S, Cordova A (2010) Safe pedicle tunnelling in maxillary reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63(3):e289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aggarwal A, Singh H, Mahendru S, Brajesh V, Singh S, Khare A, Khazanchi RK (2015) Pedicle streaking: a novel and simple aid in pedicle positioning in free tissue transfer. Indian J Plast Surg 48(3):274–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hamamoto Y, Nagasao T, Ensako T, Tanaka Y (2015) Segmental marking: a new technique to prevent pedicle twisting. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 68(6):873–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cascarini L, Monteiro MJ, Collard BR, Lyons AJ (2008) Simple technique to prevent twisting of the perforating vessels in an anterolateral thigh flap. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 46(8):694–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen HC, Tang YB (2003) Anterolateral thigh flap: an ideal soft tissue flap. Clin Plast Surg 30(3):383–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zheng L, Li N, Jiang C, Guo F (2015) Novel technique to avoid twisting of the perforator and main pedicle in the anterolateral thigh flap. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 53(3):305–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yadav PS, Ahmad QG, Shankhdhar VK, Nambi GI (2010) Pedicle transfer in oral cavity reconstruction. Indian J Plast Surg 43(1):79–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Panayi AC, Leavitt T, Orgill DP (2017) Evidence based review of negative pressure wound therapy. World J Dermatol 6(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns, Rabin Medical Center and The Sackler Faculty of MedicineTel Aviv UniversityPetach TikvaIsrael

Personalised recommendations