Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jun;28(2):893-908.
doi: 10.1007/s10006-024-01225-2. Epub 2024 Feb 14.

Application of supraclavicular island flap in oral and maxillofacial reconstruction

Abdalla Zaitoun  1 , Mohamed Fata  2 , Mohamed El Shafei  3 , Mohamed Abdeldayem #  2 , Mohamed Koraitim #  2
Affiliations

Application of supraclavicular island flap in oral and maxillofacial reconstruction

Abdalla Zaitoun et al. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024 Jun.

Abstract

Several surgical modalities are available for maxillofacial reconstruction as locoregional or microvascular free flaps.

Purpose: (a) Evaluate the reliability of the supraclavicular flap in cervico-orofacial region; (b) investigate the role of computed tomography angiography (CTA) in predicting the post-operative viability of the flap; (c) assess the speech, feeding, and esthetics after reconstruction using this flap.

Methods: Eleven patients included in this study underwent either conventional or delayed harvesting of the supraclavicular flap (SCF). All the patients had diagnostic computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the supraclavicular flap before the surgery.

Results: The mean harvesting time of the flap was 45.45 ± 4.16 min. The average length of the flap was 22.64 ± 1.12 cm, whereas the mean width of the flap was 6.14 ± 1.14 cm. The flap survived in 9 patients, while two patients had complete flap loss. After the surgery, three patients complained of speech difficulties. Two patients had swallowing problems. After the surgery, three patients complained of speech difficulties. Two patients had swallowing problems. Only two patients complained of weakness in the donor site. None of the patients reported that the weakness or pain at the donor site affected their daily activities or quality of life.

Conclusion: The pedicled SCF represents a safe and feasible option that can be used to reconstruct a wide array of maxillofacial oncologic defects. However, a study with a larger sample size is recommended to achieve more reliable clinical results for the modified delayed technique modification in terms of their effect on the survival of the supraclavicular flap.

Keywords: Angiography; Computed tomography; Head and neck; Maxillofacial; Reconstruction; Supraclavicular flap.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Jiang C, Huang J, Lin L et al (2022) Digitally reconstructed severe trauma-induced oro-maxillofacial defects with free vascularised composite tissue flaps. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60:773–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2021.11.006 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zirk M, Zalesski A, Peters F et al (2018) Prevention and management of bacterial infections of the donor site of flaps raised for reconstruction in head and neck surgery. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 46:1669–1673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2018.06.011 - DOI
    1. Ren Z-H, Wu H-J, Wang K et al (2014) Anterolateral thigh myocutaneous flaps as the preferred flaps for reconstruction of oral and maxillofacial defects. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 42:1583–1589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2014.04.012 - DOI
    1. Andrades P, Militsakh O, Hanasono MM et al (2011) Current strategies in reconstruction of maxillectomy defects. Arch Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg 137:806–812. https://doi.org/10.1001/archoto.2011.132 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Mücke T, Hölzle F, Loeffelbein DJ et al (2011) Maxillary reconstruction using microvascular free flaps. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 111:51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.03.042 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources