Functional reconstruction of subtotal glossectomy defects with radial forearm free flap: case report and review of literature

Dimitar D. Pazardzhikliev1 / Christo D. Shipkov2 / Ilya P. Yovchev3 / Regina H. Khater4 / Ivailo S. Kamishev5
1Department of Otolaryngology St George University Hospital, Medical University
2Division of Plastic and Craniofacial Surgery, Department of Pediatric Surgery St George University Hospital, Medical University Plovdiv, Bulgaria
3Department of Otolaryngology St George University Hospital, Medical University Plovdiv, Bulgaria
4Division of Plastic and Craniofacial Surgery, Department of Pediatric Surgery, St George University Hospital, Medical University Plovdiv, Bulgaria
5Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, St George University Hospital, Medical University Plovdiv, Bulgaria
Correspondence and reprint request to: D. Pazardzhikliev, Department of Otolaryngology, St George UniversityHospital, Medical University, Plovdiv; E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; Mob.: (+359) 888 515 32415A Vassil Aprilov St, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria

Citation Information: Folia Medica. Volume 54, Issue 2, Pages 60–65, ISSN (Online) 1314-2143, ISSN (Print) 0204-8043, DOI: 10.2478/v10153-011-0090-x, October 2012
Publication History:
Published Online:
2012-10-27

ABSTRACT

Adequate reconstruction of defects that are consequences of glossectomy is of primary importance for achieving satisfactory functional results and improving the quality of life.

AIM: The aim of this study was to report a case of free flap reconstruction of a subtotal glossectomy defect and discuss it in relation to other available methods.

CASE REPORT: A 48- year-old woman was operated on for a T4N0M0 squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue. A subtotal glossectomy via mandibular swing procedure with bilateral supraomohyoid neck dissection and reconstruction with a radial forearm free flap (RFFF) was performed. Surgery was followed by adjuvant radiotherapy.

RESULTS: The post-operative period was uneventful. The patient resumed intelligible speech evaluated as “excellent” and oral feeding. The donor site morbidity was acceptable. Present reconstructive options of the tongue include two categories: to maintain mobility or to provide bulk. In glossectomy with 30 to 50 percent preservation of the original musculature, maintaining the mobility of the remaining tongue by a thin, pliable flap is preferred. This can be achieved by infrahyoid myofascial, medial sural artery perforator flap, RFFF, anterolateral thigh and ulnar forearm flap. When the post-resectional volume is less than 30 percent of the original tongue, the reconstruction shifts to restoration of bulk to facilitate swallowing by providing contact of the neotongue with the palate. Flaps providing bulk include the free TRAM flap, latissimus dorsi myocutaneous free flap, pectoralis major musculocutaneous flap and trapezius island flap.

CONCLUSION: Surgical treatment of advanced tongue cancer requires adequate reconstruction with restoration of speech, swallowing and oral feeding. Free tissue transfer seems to achieve superior functional results with acceptable donor site morbidity when indicated.