Feasibility and Advantage of a Muscle-Sparing Laterally Based Pericranial Flap. Issue 3 (May 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yano, Tomoyuki; Okazaki, Mutsumi; Tanaka, Kentaro; Tsunoda, Atsunobu; Aoyagi, Masaru; Kishimoto, Seiji
• Is Part Of: Journal of craniofacial surgery. Volume 27:Issue 3(2016)
• Publication Date: 2016-05
• Subjects: Muscle-sparing -- pericranial flap -- skull base reconstruction -- skull base -- temporalis muscle flap; Facial bones -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Skull -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; 617.52
• DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000002438
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1049-2275

Abstract

Abstract : Background: For a safe and reliable middle skull base reconstruction, the temporalis muscle flaps or pericranial-temporalis muscle flaps have usually been used as the first-choice in clinical practice. But these flaps have an inevitable disadvantage, namely, temporal hollowing. To address this problem, in this study, the authors describe the feasibility and advantages of using a muscle-sparing laterally based pericranial flap. Method: The authors reviewed 19 patients who had undergone middle skull base reconstruction using laterally based pericranial flaps. There were two types of these flaps. One was the conventional type: a laterally based pericranial flap combined with the temporoparietal fascia and temporal muscle, that is a conventional laterally based pericranial flap (C-PCF). The other was the muscle-sparing type: a laterally based pericranial flap combined with the temporoparietal fascia, but sparing and preserving the temporal muscle (MS-PCF). The first 9 patients were reconstructed with a C-PCF and the latter 10 patients were reconstructed with an MS-PCF. Results: There was no significant difference between C-PCF and MS-PCF as regards reconstructive time and postoperative hospital stay. In addition, there was no significant difference between C-PCF and MS-PCF in regard to perioperative complications. The rate of temporal hollowing did not reach a significant difference; MS-PCF patients tended to have less temporal hollowing (10%) compared with C-PCF patients (55.6%). Discussion: An MS-PCF could provide safe and reliable skull base reconstruction without lengthening reconstructive time or increasing complications. Moreover, an MS-PCF improves the esthetical results of surgery on skull base patients and provides an extra option for other reconstructive procedures by preserving the temporal muscle.