Lip reconstruction

Lip reconstruction remains challenging. Accurate analysis of the defect and a thorough understanding of the anatomy and options for reconstruction will maintain the functional and aesthetic quality of this sensitive area.     

Upper eyelid reconstruction

There are several options available for upper eyelid reconstruction that depend on the extent of involvement of the anterior and posterior lamella. Knowledge of the anatomy will ensure that in addition to the creation of an aesthetically acceptable eyelid reconstruction, a functional upper lid will be restored. The purpose of this article is to outline the anatomy of the eyelid, to analyze the components of eyelid defects, and to provide options for lid reconstruction.     

Complex nasal reconstruction

LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe the goals of nasal reconstruction as they apply to extensive, complex defects that may also involve the adjacent lip or cheeks. 2. Understand the advantages and disadvantages of different options for reconstruction of lining, skeletal support, and skin cover. 3. Discuss current advances in complex nasal reconstruction, including microvascular reconstruction of lining and the three-stage forehead flap. 4. Understand the concepts of laminated and prelaminated flaps and their application in complex nasal defects. SUMMARY: In this article, the authors review methods of reconstructing complex, multilayered nasal defects that may involve surrounding central facial structures. Different means of lining, skeletal support, and skin cover reconstruction are discussed. Emphasis is placed on newer, state-of-the art techniques and reinforcing basic principles.     

Delayed-immediate breast reconstruction

In patients with early-stage breast cancer who are scheduled to undergo mastectomy and desire breast reconstruction, the optimal timing of reconstruction depends on whether postmastectomy radiation therapy will be needed. Immediate reconstruction offers the best aesthetic outcomes if postmastectomy radiation therapy is not needed, but if postmastectomy radiation therapy is required, delayed reconstruction is preferable to avoid potential aesthetic and radiation-delivery problems. Unfortunately, the need for postmastectomy radiation therapy cannot be reliably determined until review of the permanent tissue sections. The authors recently implemented a two-stage approach, delayed-immediate breast reconstruction, to optimize reconstruction in patients at risk for requiring postmastectomy radiation therapy when the need for postmastectomy radiation therapy is not known at the time of mastectomy. Stage 1 consists of skin-sparing mastectomy with insertion of a completely filled textured saline tissue expander. After review of permanent sections, patients who did not require post-mastectomy radiation therapy underwent immediate reconstruction (stage 2) and patients who required postmastectomy radiation therapy completed postmastectomy radiation therapy and then underwent standard delayed reconstruction. In this study, the feasibility and outcomes of this approach were reviewed. Fourteen patients were treated with delayed-immediate reconstruction between May of 2002 and June of 2003. Twelve patients had unilateral reconstruction and two patients had bilateral reconstruction, for a total of 16 treated breasts. All patients completed stage 1. Tissue expanders were inserted subpectorally in 15 breasts and subcutaneously in one breast. The mean intraoperative expander fill volume was 475 cc (range, 250 to 750 cc). Three patients required postmastectomy radiation therapy and underwent delayed reconstruction. Eleven patients did not require postmastectomy radiation therapy. Nine patients had 11 breast reconstructions (stage 2), six with free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flaps, one with a superior gluteal artery perforator flap, and four with a latissimus dorsi flap plus an implant. The median interval between stages was 13 days (range, 11 to 22 days). Two patients who did not require postmastectomy radiation therapy have not yet had stage 2 reconstruction, one because she wished to delay reconstruction and the other because she required additional tissue expansion before permanent implant placement. Six complications occurred. The stage 1 complications involved two cases of mastectomy skin necrosis in patients who required post-mastectomy radiation therapy; one patient required removal of the subcutaneously placed expander before postmastectomy radiation therapy and the other patient had a subpectorally placed expander that only required local wound care. The stage 2 complications were a recipient-site seroma in a patient with a latissimus dorsi flap, a recipient-site hematoma in the patient with the superior gluteal artery perforator flap, and two arterial thromboses in patients with TRAM flaps. Both TRAM flaps were salvaged. Delayed-immediate reconstruction is technically feasible and safe in patients with early-stage breast cancer who may require postmastectomy radiation therapy. With this approach, patients who do not require postmastectomy radiation therapy can achieve aesthetic outcomes essentially the same as those with immediate reconstruction, and patients who require postmastectomy radiation therapy can avoid the aesthetic and radiation-delivery problems that can occur after an immediate breast reconstruction.     

The reconstruction principle

The theory of epigenesis is the undisputed paradigm of embryology, and it is still based on the classical concept proposed by Aristotle: the idea that embryonic development is a generation of structures which takes place according to a design--today we say a set of instructions--already present in the fertilized egg. This is a doctrine which can be referred to as 'pre-information', since it claims the preexistence of information exactly as the old theory of preformation claimed the preexistence of form. Here, however, it is shown that a more general version of epigenesis can be held, because of a new principle which states that it is mathematically possible to obtain not only a convergent generation of form, or structure, but also a convergent generation of information.     

Resource cost comparison of implant-based breast reconstruction versus TRAM flap breast reconstruction

Relatively little has been published to date comparing the resource costs of transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap and prosthetic breast reconstruction. The data that have been published reflect the experience at just one medical center with a previously known clear preference for autologous breast reconstruction. The goal of this study was to compare the resource costs of TRAM flap and prosthetic reconstruction in an institution where both procedures continue to be performed using modern techniques and at a relatively equivalent frequency. All available medical records were reviewed for patients who had completed their breast reconstruction between 1987 and 1997. Records of patients who had undergone TRAM flap or prosthetic reconstruction were reviewed to compare resource costs, including hospital stay, operating room time, anesthesia time, prosthetic devices, and physician's fees. Of 835 patients reviewed who had completed breast reconstruction, a total of 140 suitable patients were identified who had all the necessary financial information available. The patient population comprised 64 patients who received TRAM flaps and 76 patients who had undergone prosthetic reconstruction. The length of stay for the TRAM flap group, including all subsequent admissions for each patient, ranged from 2 to 24 days (mean, 6.25 days), and that for the prosthetic reconstruction group ranged from 0 to 20 days (mean, 4.36 days). Operating room time for the complete multistage reconstructive process for a TRAM flap ranged from 5 hours, 20 minutes to 12 hours, 25 minutes (mean, 7 hours, 34 minutes); with implant-based reconstruction, operating time ranged from 1 hour, 45 minutes to 8 hours, 56 minutes (mean, 4 hours, 6 minutes). With prostheses costing from $600 to $1200, a surgeon's fee of $160/hour, and an assistant's fee of $45/hour, the average cost of TRAM flap reconstructions was $19,607 (range, $11,948 to $49,402), compared with $15,497 for prosthetic reconstructions (range, $6422 to $40,015). The results were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Several factors weigh into the decision as to which reconstructive operation best suits the patient's needs. These factors include surgical risk, potential morbidity, and aesthetic results. On the basis of this review of autologous and prosthetic breast reconstruction in an institution where both are performed frequently, during a 10-year period with a mean time elapsed since reconstruction of 7.45 years, prosthetic reconstruction was significantly less expensive.