Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 6, 2025
Porcine As a Training Module for Head and Neck Microvascular Reconstruction
Published on: September 29, 2018
Prelaminated flaps in head and neck cancer reconstructive surgery: A systematic review
Matteo Fermi1,2,3, Edoardo Bassano1, Giulia Molinari1,2,3
1Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Department, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy.
Background:
Prelamination is a reconstructive technique providing fasciomucosal or composite flaps with low donor-site morbidity. We conducted a systematic review of retrospective studies to assess the application of prelaminated flaps in reconstructive surgery of head and neck cancer patients, and to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of this technique.
Methods:
This systematic review adhered to the recommendations of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) 2009 guidelines. A computerized MEDLINE search was performed using the PubMed service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (www.pubmed.org) and Scopus database (www.scopus.com), running the following search string: "prelamination OR prelaminated AND flap." Two authors screened the articles, then selected and extracted data on malignancies characteristics, reconstructive techniques, outcomes and complications.
Results:
A total of 19 articles were selected and reviewed from 128 identified. Seven of 19 articles were case reports, 12 articles were case series. One-hundred-two patients underwent reconstructive treatment by prelamination technique using a wide variety of flaps (92 free, 10 pedicled). The sites of reconstruction were oral cavity (66 floor of the mouth, 3 retromolar trigone, 6 hard palate, 4 cheek, 4 tongue), 8 facial skin (5 of them sited on the nose), 4 oropharyngeal defects, 1 laryngotracheal region. No case of total flap loss was reported. Partial flap loss or shrinkage requiring minor surgical revisions was observed in 18 patients (17.6%). Primary closure of the donor site was achieved in 97 cases (97%) and 3 (3%) required revision surgery of the donor site.
Conclusion:
Prelamination is an effective and versatile technique, with low donor-site morbidity. Further studies would be needed to investigate the impact on the patient's oncologic outcome. More comparative studies with standard reconstructive techniques are essential to understand when it is worth performing this sophisticated procedure.
