Advertisement

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 275, Issue 7, pp 1939–1943 | Cite as

De-mucosalized pharyngeal flap: a modified technique for selected cases of velopharyngeal insufficiency

  • Sherif M. Askar
Short Communication

Abstract

Background and purpose

Superiorly based posterior pharyngeal flap is performed via rotation of tissues of the posterior pharyngeal wall anteriorly and anchoring it to the soft palate. Unfortunately, bad healing of the donor site defect might be a considerable cause of morbidity of the surgery. With some modifications of flap elevation we could achieve better surgical outcomes. The aim of this study was to present the new modification of the conventional maneuver and its surgical/functional outcomes.

Subjects and methods

The study design is a case series. 17 patients underwent the de-mucosalized superiorly based pharyngeal flap for the treatment of velopharyngeal insufficiency. A wide laterally based (mucosa-only) flap was elevated off the submucosa of the posterior pharyngeal wall and then a superiorly based posterior pharyngeal flap (bared of its covering mucosa) was elevated and sutured to the palate. The mucosal flap was draped over the bed and sutured.

Results

No significant complications as airway problems, infection and bleeding were reported. Also, the postoperative pain was tolerable and there were no reports of neck rigidity with early ambulation; VAS showed significant improvement. No patients showed flap dehiscence or palatal fistula. Speech assessment showed improvement.

Conclusion

The modified de-mucosalized, superiorly based pharyngeal flap technique ensured self-mucosal draping of the bed, thus it would enhance primary healing and decrease postoperative pain with the resultant early ambulation. We believe that the new modified technique could correct VPI, in addition to the improvement of patients’ comfort and decrease the morbidity of the procedure.

Keywords

Velopharyngeal insufficiency Pharyngeal flap Modified pharyngeal flap 

Notes

Funding

The author declares no financial support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Collins J, Cheung K, Farrkhyar F, Strumas N (2012) Pharyngeal flap versus sphincter pharyngoplasty for the treatment of velopharyngeal insufficiency: a meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 65(7):864–868CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Askar SM, Quriba AS (2014) Powered instrumentation for transnasal endoscopic partial adenoidectomy in children with submucosal cleft palate. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 78(2):317–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wiatrak BJ, Woolley AL (2005) Pharyngitis and adenotonsillar disease. In: Cummings CW, Flint PW, Harker LA, Haughey BH, Richardson MA, Robins KT et al (eds) Cummings text book of otolaryngology head & neck surgery, 4th edn. Elsevier Mosby, Philadelphia, pp 4135–4165Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rogers DJ, Ashland JE, Rozeboom MJ, Hartnick CJ (2013) Modified superior pharyngeal flap for the treatment of velopharyngeal insufficiency in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 77:1083–1087CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Askar SM (2013) Endoscopic-assisted sphincter pharyngoplasty-EASP. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 77:170–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Askar SM, Abou-El Saad TS (2014) A speech nasoendoscopy-based surgeon’s decision for correction of velopharyngeal insufficiency following adenotonsillectomy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 271(2):391–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hirschberg J (2012) Results and Complications of 1104 Surgeries for Velopharyngeal Insufficiency. Int Sch Res Netw ISRN Otolaryngol.  https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/181202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Muntz H, Smith ME, Sauder C, Meier JD (2015) Velopharyngeal dysfunction. In: Cumming’s otolaryngology head & neck surgery, vol 188, 6th edn. Elsevier Mosby, Philadelphia, pp 2933–2943Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elsheikh E, El-Anwar MW (2016) Posterior pharyngeal flap for velopharyngeal insufficiency patients: a new L-shaped flap. J Craniofac Surg 27(1):204–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Emara TA, Quriba AS (2012) Posterior pharyngeal flap for velopharyngeal insufficiency patients: a new technique for flap inset. Laryngoscope 122:260–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Polkki T, Pietila A, Vehvilainen-Julkunen K (2003) Hospitalized children’s descriptions of their experiences with postsurgical pain relieving methods. Int J Nurs Stud 40:33–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stinson JN, Kavanagh T, Yamada J, Gill N, Stevens B (2006) Systematic review of the psychometric properties, interpretability and feasibility of self-report pain intensity measures for use in clinical trials in children and adolescents. Pain 125(1–2):143–157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ysunza A, Pamplona M, Molina F, Hernandez M A (2009) Surgical planning for restoring velopharyngeal function in velocardiofacial syndrome surgery for speech in cleft palate patients. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 73:1572–1575CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tatum SA, Chang J, Havkin N, Shprintzen RJ (2002) Pharyngeal flap and the internal carotid in velocardiofacial syndrome. Arch Facial Plast Surg 4:73–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sherif M. Askar
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery Department, Faculty of MedicineZagazig UniversityZagazigEgypt
  2. 2.Zagazig CityEgypt

Personalised recommendations