A Cohort Study of Paramedian Forehead Flap in 2 Stages (87 Flaps) and 3 Stages (100 Flaps)

Adelana Santos Stahl1, Wolfgang Gubisch, Helmut Fischer

  • 1From the *Department of Facial Plastic Surgery, Marienhospital Stuttgart, Stuttgart; †Department of Medical Biometry, and ‡Department of Plastic, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, Burn Center, BG-Trauma Center, Eberhard-Karl University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.

Abstract

Insights

The study found no significant difference in flap necrosis rates between the traditional 2-stage and the modified 3-stage paramedian forehead flap techniques for nasal reconstruction. Both methods showed similar complication prevalence, even in complex cases.

Area of Science:

  • Plastic Surgery
  • Reconstructive Surgery
  • Otolaryngology

Background:

  • The paramedian forehead flap is a common technique for nasal reconstruction.
  • Traditionally, this procedure is performed in two stages.
  • A three-stage technique, including flap thinning, was proposed to reduce flap necrosis.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the complication rates, specifically flap necrosis, between the 2-stage and 3-stage paramedian forehead flap techniques for nasal reconstruction.
  • To evaluate the prevalence of complications in relation to the complexity of nasal defects.

Main Methods:

  • A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing nasal reconstruction with paramedian forehead flaps over six years.
  • Inclusion criteria: 87 patients with 2-stage flaps and 100 patients with 3-stage flaps, with at least six months of follow-up.
  • Regression analysis was used to adjust for differences in case complexity between the two groups.

Main Results:

  • Demographics and causes of nasal defects were comparable between the 2-stage and 3-stage groups.
  • Despite greater complexity in the 3-stage group, partial flap necrosis rates were similar (2-stage: 3.4%; 3-stage: 5%; P=0.601).
  • Regression analysis indicated no significant difference in the relative risk of partial flap necrosis for complex cases between the two techniques (RR=0.80; P=0.705).

Conclusions:

  • This study, the largest to date comparing these techniques, found no evidence that the 3-stage paramedian forehead flap reduces necrosis prevalence compared to the 2-stage method.
  • The findings suggest that the 3-stage technique does not offer a significant advantage in preventing flap necrosis.
  • Further research, including multicenter studies, is needed to confirm these findings and explore potential differences in aesthetic outcomes.

Related Concept Videos