You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 110 No. 1, January 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  ORIGINAL ARTICLES
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

The Deltopectoral Flap v the Pectoralis Major Myocutaneous Flap

Which One?

LTC John C. Price, MC; MAJ R. Kim Davis, MC

Arch Otolaryngol. 1984;110(1):35-40.


Abstract

• During the past 21/2 years, we have used 21 deltopectoral (DP) and 25 pectoralis major myocutaneous (PM) flaps of which 25 were applied to oral and pharyngeal defects. The concurrent use of both flaps has enabled elucidation of some specific and relative advantages and disadvantages. The following five situations have been identified in which we believe the PM flap is clearly superior: (1) lateral mandibular composite resection defects; (2) large anterior segmental defects; (3) reconstitution of tongue and base of tongue; (4) radionecrosis; and (5) through-and-through defects of skin and oral cavity. The DP flap appears to hold an advantage in the repair of the following defects: (1) limited anterior mandibular loss; (2) posterior and lateral pharyngeal loss; (3) complex resections involving the palate; and (4) cervicofacial skin. The unique advantages of each flap must be weighed against certain disadvantages. Application to each reconstructive problem should be individualized. Proficiency with both flaps enhances the surgeon's ability to deal with major ablative procedures.

(Arch Otolaryngol 1984;110:35-40)



Author Affiliations

USA; USA

From the Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Service, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC; and the Department of Surgery, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md. Dr Davis is now with the University of Utah College of Medicine, Salt Lake City.


Footnotes

Accepted for publication June 3, 1983.

The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private ones of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the Department of the Army or Department of Defense.

Reprint requests to Division of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, University of Utah College of Medicine, 3B 326 University Medical Center, 50 N Medical Dr, Salt Lake City, UT 84132 (Dr Davis).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Prevention of Hair Growth in Myocutaneous Flap Reconstruction
Eliachar et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990;116:923-927.
ABSTRACT  

Pectoralis Major Muscle Flap in Head and Neck Reconstruction
Robertson and Robinson
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1986;112:297-301.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1984 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.