DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20213589

Submental flap reconstruction for medium sized tongue defects: technique and surgical outcome-a retrospective study

Ashish Singhal, Gaurav Singh, Rajshekar Puttaswamy

Abstract


Background: Defects of the tongue has the major effect on speech and swallowing. Free flaps serve as an ideal choice for reconstruction but in developing countries, local flaps serve as an alternative in decreasing the morbidity and improving functional outcome with easy reproducibility by majority of head and neck surgeons. Surgical outcomes associated with submental flaps (SMF) used in the reconstruction of medium-sized defects of the tongue was evaluated as well a novel modification of the technique to safeguard the feeding vessel was presented.

Methods: A total of 40 patients with tongue cancer who underwent SMF reconstruction from 2014 to 2017 with minimum 2 year follow up were retrospectively studied. The patient characteristics, tumor stage, nodal status, intraoperative findings, postoperative complications, locoregional recurrence, cosmetic satisfaction and functional outcomes were noted.

Results: Out of 40 patients, 27 had pT2, 7 had pT3 and 6 patients had pT4 disease while 6 patients had pN1 and 2 patients had pN2 disease. Total flap necrosis, marginal skin paddle necrosis and total skin paddle loss were observed in 0, 5 and 1 patient(s), respectively. Venous congestion of the flap was the most common complication seen while no orocutaneous fistula or marginal mandibular palsy were seen. Five patients had locoregional recurrence and two patients had distant metastases. Functional and cosmetic outcome was excellent in most of patients.

Conclusions: The SMF is a reliable and convenient technique that can serve as an alternative to free flaps in the reconstruction of medium-sized defects of the tongue.


Keywords


Submental flap, Tongue, Cancer, Facial vein, Functional outcome

Full Text:

PDF

References


Squaquara R, Evans KFK, Spilimbergo SD, Mardini S. Intraoral reconstruction using local and regional flaps. Semin Plast Surg. 2010;24(2):198-211.

Urken ML, Weinberg H, Buchbinder D, Moscoso JF, Lawson W, Catalano PJ, et al. Microvascular free flaps in head and neck reconstruction: report of 200 cases and review of complications. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1994;120(6):633-40.

Hurvitz KA, Kobayashi M, Evans GRD. Current options in head and neck reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(5):122-33.

Sebastian P, Thomas S, Varghese BT, Iype EM, Balagopal PG, Mathew PC. The submental island flap for reconstruction of intraoral defects in oral cancer patients. Oral Oncol. 2008;44(11):1014-8.

Martin D, Pascal J, Baudet J, Mondie J, Farhat J, Athoum A, et al. The submental island flap: a new donor site. Anatomy and clinical applications as a free or pedicled flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993;92(5):867-73.

Chaudhary B, Gong Z, Ling B, Lin Z, Abbas K, Hu M, et al. Application of the submental island flap in the reconstruction of intraoral defects. J Craniofac Surg. 2014;25(4):309-12.

Patel UA, Bayles SW, Hayden RE. The submental flap: a modified technique for resident training. Laryngoscope. 2007;117(1):186-9.

Youtube. Fact sheet: Submental flap, 2019. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8KVNiyJf7A. Accessed on 5 May 2021.

Goldie SJ, Jackson MS, Soutar DS, Shaw-Dunn J. The functional intraoral Glasgow scale (FIGS) in retromolar trigone cancer patients. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59(7):743-6.

Parmar PS, Goldstein DP. The submental island flap in head and neck reconstruction. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;17(4):263-6.

Amin AA, Sakkary MA, Khalil AA, Rifaat MA, Zayed SB. The submental flap for oral cavity reconstruction: extended indications and technical refinements. Head Neck Oncol. 2011;3(1):51.

Lee JC, Lai WS, Kao CH, Hsu CH, Chu YH, Lin YS. Multiple-parameter evaluation demonstrates low donor-site morbidity after submental flap harvesting. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71(10):1800-8.

Kramer FJ, Böhrnsen F, Moser N, Schliephake H. The submental island flap for the treatment of intraoral tumor-related defects: no effect on recurrence rates. Oral Oncol. 2015;51(7):668-73.

Sittitrai P, Reunmakkaew D, Srivanitchapoom C. Submental island flap versus radial forearm free flap for oral tongue reconstruction: a comparison of complications and functional outcomes. J Laryngol Otol. 2019;133(5):413-8.

Aslam-Pervez N, Caldroney SJ, Isaiah A, Lubek JE. A retrospective volume matched analysis of the submental artery island pedicled flap as compared to the forearm free flap: is it a good alternative choice for the reconstruction of defects of the oral cavity and oropharynx? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76(3):656-63.

Pistre V, Pelissier P, Martin D, Lim A, Baudet J. Ten years of experience with the submental flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108(6):1576-81.

Schonauer F, DiMartino A, Nele G, Santoro M, Orabona GD, Califano L. Submental flap as an alternative to microsurgical flap in intraoral post-oncological reconstruction in the elderly. Spec Issue Ital Soc Geriatr Surg. 2016;33:51-6.

Zhang B, Wang J, Chen W, Yang Z, Huang Z. Reverse facial-submental artery island flap for reconstruction of oropharyngeal defects following middle and advanced-stage carcinoma ablation. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;49(3):194-7.

Chang BA, Asarkar AA, Nathan CAO. What is the oncologic safety of using the submental flap to reconstruct oral cavity cancer defects? Laryngoscope. 2019;129(11):2443-4.

Elzahaby IA, Roshdy S, Shahatto F, Hussein O. The adequacy of lymph node harvest in concomitant neck block dissection and submental island flap reconstruction for oral squamous cell carcinoma: a case series from a single Egyptian institution. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15(1):80.

Merten SL, Jiang RP, Caminer D. The submental artery island flap for head and neck reconstruction. ANZ J Surg. 2002;72(2):121-4.