Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:45:22.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Facial artery musculomucosal flaps in oropharyngeal reconstruction following salvage transoral robotic surgery: a review of outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2019

A Asairinachan ,
F O'Duffy ,
M P Li ,
T Fua ,
A Chauhan ,
M J R Magarey  and
B J Dixon
A Asairinachan*
Affiliation:
Department of Surgical Oncology, Head and Neck Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
F O'Duffy
Affiliation:
Department of Surgical Oncology, Head and Neck Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
M P Li
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
T Fua
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
A Chauhan
Affiliation:
Department of Surgical Oncology, Head and Neck Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Epworth Healthcare, Richmond, Australia
M J R Magarey
Affiliation:
Department of Surgical Oncology, Head and Neck Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Epworth Healthcare, Richmond, Australia
B J Dixon
Affiliation:
Department of Surgical Oncology, Head and Neck Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Epworth Healthcare, Richmond, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Ashwinna Asairinachan, Department of Surgical Oncology, Head and Neck Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street, Melbourne 3000, Victoria, Australia E-mail: ash.asair@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

There has been little reported on the transoral reconstructive options following salvage transoral robotic surgery. This paper describes the facial artery musculomucosal flap as a method to introduce vascularised tissue to a previously irradiated resection bed.

Methods

A facial artery musculomucosal flap was used to reconstruct the lateral pharyngeal wall in 13 patients undergoing salvage transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Outcomes recorded include flap and donor site complications, length of stay, and swallowing and speech outcomes.

Results

There were no immediate or late flap complications, or cases of delayed wound healing in this series. There were two facial artery musculomucosal related complications requiring surgical management: one bleed from the facial artery musculomucosal donor site and one minor surgical revision. Healing of the flap onto the resection bed was successful in all cases.

Conclusion

The facial artery musculomucosal flap provides a suitable transoral local flap option for selected patients undergoing salvage transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal malignancies.

Keywords

Robotic Surgical ProceduresReconstructive Surgical ProceduresSalvage TherapyOropharyngeal NeoplasmsSquamous Cell Carcinoma
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 133 , Issue 10 , October 2019 , pp. 884 - 888
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr A Asairinachan takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

Presented at the Asian Society of Head and Neck Oncology (‘ASHNO’) Meeting, 27–30 March 2019, Seoul, Korea.

References

1Moore, EJ, Van Abel, KM, Price, DL, Lohse, CM, Olsen, KD, Jackson, RS et al. Transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal carcinoma: surgical margins and oncologic outcomes. Head Neck 2018;40:747–55Google Scholar
2Weinstein, GS, O'Malley, BW, Magnuson, JS, Carroll, W, Olsen, KD, Daio, L et al. Transoral robotic surgery: a multicenter study to assess feasibility, safety, and surgical margins. Laryngoscope 2012;122:1701–7Google Scholar
3White, H, Ford, S, Bush, B, Holsinger, FC, Moore, E, Ghanem, T et al. Salvage surgery for recurrent cancers of the oropharynx: comparing TORS with standard open surgical approaches. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;139:773–8Google Scholar
4Meulemans, J, Vanclooster, C, Vauterin, T, D'heygere, E, Nuyts, S, Clement, PM et al. Up-front and salvage transoral robotic surgery for head and neck cancer: a Belgian multicentre retrospective case series. Front Oncol 2017;7:1–11Google Scholar
5Ghanem, TA. Transoral robotic-assisted microvascular reconstruction of the oropharynx. Laryngoscope 2011;121:580–2Google Scholar
6Genden, EM, Kotz, T, Tong, CCL, Smith, C, Sikora, AG, Teng, MS et al. Transoral robotic resection and reconstruction for head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope 2011;121:1668–74Google Scholar
7Tomifuji, M, Araki, K, Yamashita, T, Shiotani, A. Salvage transoral videolaryngoscopic surgery for radiorecurrent hypopharyngeal and supraglottic cancer. Auris Nasus Larynx 2017;44:464–71Google Scholar
8Jacobson, LK, Johnson, MB, Dedhia, RD, Niknam-Bienia, S, Wong, AK. Impaired wound healing after radiation therapy: a systematic review of pathogenesis and treatment. JPRAS Open 2017;13:92–105Google Scholar
9Dormand, E, Banwell, PE, Goodacre, TEE. Radiotherapy and wound healing. Int Wound J 2005;2:112–27Google Scholar
10Kao, SS, Ooi, EH. Survival outcomes following salvage surgery for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: systematic review. J Laryngol Otol 2017;132:299–313Google Scholar
11de Almeida, JR, Park, RCW, Villanueva, NL, Miles, BA, Teng, MS, Genden, EM. Reconstructive algorithm and classification system for transoral oropharyngeal defects. Head Neck 2014;36:934–41Google Scholar
12Ayad, T, Kolb, F, de Mones, E, Mamelle, G, Temam, S. Reconstruction of floor of mouth defects by the facial artery musculo-mucosal flap following cancer ablation. Head Neck 2008;30:437–45Google Scholar
13Brouwer, CL, Steenbakkers, RJ, Bourhis, J, Budach, W, Grau, C, Gregoire, V et al. CT-based delineation of organs at risk in the head and neck region: DAHANCA, EORTC, GORTEC, KNPCSH, NCIC CTG, NCRI, NRG Oncology and TROG consensus guidelines. Radiother Oncol 2015;117:83–90Google Scholar
14Amin, MB, Edge, S, Greene, F, Byrd, DR, Brookland, RK, Washington, MK et al. , eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th edn. New York: Springer, 2017Google Scholar
15Bonawitz, SC, Duvvuri, U. Robotic-assisted FAMM flap for soft palate reconstruction. Laryngoscope 2013;123:870–4Google Scholar
16Pinheiro-Neto, CD, Galati, LT. Nasoseptal flap for reconstruction after robotic radical tonsillectomy. Head Neck 2016;38:E2495–8Google Scholar
17Meccariello, G, Montevecchi, F, Deganello, A, D'Agostino, G, Bellini, C, Zeccardo, E et al. The temporalis muscle flap for reconstruction of the soft palate and lateral oropharyngeal wall after transoral robotic surgery. Auris Nasus Larynx 2018;45:162–4Google Scholar
18Mukhija, VK, Sung, CK, Desai, SC, Wanna, G, Genden, EM. Transoral robotic assisted free flap reconstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;140:124–5Google Scholar
19Selber, JC. Transoral robotic reconstruction of oropharyngeal defects: a case series. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;126:1978–87Google Scholar
20Selber, JC, Sarhane, KA, Ibrahim, AE, Holsinger, FC. Transoral robotic reconstructive surgery. Semin Plast Surg 2014;28:35–8Google Scholar
21Meccariello, G, Montevecchi, F, Sgarzani, R, Vicini, C. Defect-oriented reconstruction after transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal cancer: a case series and review of the literature. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2018;38:569–74Google Scholar
22Biron, VL, O'Connell, DA, Barber, B, Clark, JM, Andrews, C, Jeffery, CC et al. Transoral robotic surgery with radial forearm free flap reconstruction: case control analysis. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017;46:1–7Google Scholar
23Dabas, S, Dewan, A, Rangan, R, Dewan, AK, Shukla, H, Sinha, R. Salvage transoral robotic surgery for recurrent or residual head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a single institution experience. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2015;16:7627–32Google Scholar
24Dean, NR, Rosenthal, EL, Carroll, WR, Kostrzewa, JP, Jones, VL, Desmond, RA et al. Robotic-assisted surgery for primary or recurrent oropharyngeal carcinoma. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;136:380–4Google Scholar
25Al-Khudari, S, Bendix, S, Lindholm, J, Simemrman, E, Hall, F, Ghanem, T. Gastrostomy tube use after transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal cancer. ISRN Otolaryngol 2013;2013:1–5Google Scholar
26Pribaz, J, Stephens, W, Crespo, L, Gifford, G. A new intraoral flap: facial artery musculomucosal (FAMM) flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1992;90:421–9Google Scholar
27Ayad, T, Xie, L. Facial artery musculomucosal flap in head and neck reconstruction: a systematic review. Head Neck 2014;37:1375–86Google Scholar
28Berania, I, Lavigne, F, Rahal, A, Ayad, T. Superiorly based facial artery musculomucosal flap: a versatile pedicled flap. Head Neck 2018;40:402–5Google Scholar
29O'Leary, P, Bundgaard, T. Good results in patients with defects after intraoral tumour excision using facial artery musculo-mucosal flap. Dan Med Bull 2011;58:A4264Google Scholar