Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 27, 2026

Coronoid-Temporalis Pedicled Flap for Orbital Floor Defect Reconstruction
Published on: December 5, 2025
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.
Background:
In nasal reconstruction, the paramedian forehead flap is traditionally performed in 2 stages. To minimize the risk of flap necrosis, Millard described a 3-stage technique in a series of 5 cases in 1974. In this technique, an intermediate step of flap thinning is performed after flap transfer and before pedicle division. In this article, we compare the 2- and 3-stage techniques of paramedian forehead flaps for nasal reconstruction to determine the type and prevalence of complications related to each procedure.
Methods:
Here, we present a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of paramedian forehead flaps for nasal reconstruction performed during a period of 6 years. We included all patients with 2- (n=87) and 3-stage (n=100) paramedian forehead flaps who had consistent and complete electronic patient records and followed them up for at least 6 months after pedicle division. We performed a regression analysis to adjust for the unequal distribution of complex cases.
Results:
Demographic factors and the causes for the nasal defects were similar in both groups. Although the nasal reconstructions were significantly more complex in the 3-stage group, the rate of partial forehead flap necrosis was similar in both groups (2-stage, 3.4%; 3-stage, 5%; P=0.601). A regression analysis showed that the relative risk of partial flap necrosis in complex cases did not differ significantly between groups (relative risk, 0.80; P=0.705).
Conclusions:
To our knowledge, our study is the largest series published to date and the first one to compare the prevalence of forehead flap necrosis in the 2- versus the 3-stage technique for paramedian forehead flaps. We found no evidence that the use of a 3-stage forehead flap lowers the prevalence of necrosis. Until larger multicenter studies or meta-analyses can be conducted, smaller yet well-conducted studies such as the present one provide critical data and represent an important contribution to the field. Future research should investigate whether the 3-stage technique produces better aesthetic results than the 2-stage technique.
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.
More Related Videos
07:57An Experimental Human DIEP Flap Model to Investigate Preservation Strategies for Vascularized Composite Allografts and Free Flaps
Published on: December 5, 2025
09:07The Superficial Inferior Epigastric Artery Axial Flap to Study Ischemic Preconditioning Effects in a Rat Model
Published on: January 27, 2023