Guevara-Valmańa OI, Apellaniz-Campo AG, Andrade‑Delgado L, Ángeles‑Gaspar D, Leyva‑Sotelo LM, Chávez‑Serna E

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 277-280
PDF size: 255.05 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The frontal flap has been one of the most used techniques for nasal reconstruction since the beginning of plastic surgery due to its high versatility. There is currently a lot of controversy regarding its use in children, due to the doubt of the growth of the flap together with the patient. We present the case of a 4-year-old boy who was bitten by a dog in the face, with partial amputation of the nasal tip having been handled conservatively in another institution. One year after the injury he was brought to our service for the nasal deformity. Reconstruction was performed with a frontal flap, achieving excellent results; coverage was achieved with similar skin characteristics, such as color and texture. The patient was followed up for five years with an adequate evolution. The importance of the case lies in the few reports in the literature of its use in children and it can be seen that it is an excellent reconstructive tool.

REFERENCES

1. Caspara Uth C, Boljanovic S. Nasal reconstruction in a child after a dog bite-9 years later. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015; 3(5):e398. Published 2015 Jun 5. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000000373.

2. Whitaker IS, Karoo RO, Spyrou G, Fenton OM. The birth of plastic surgery: the story of nasal reconstruction from the Edwin Smith Papyrus to the twenty-first century. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120 (1): 327-336.

3. Telich J, Velazquez E, Theurel-Cuevas A, Shinji-Perez K, Anaya-Ayala J, Jimenez-Murat Y, Cardenas A. Upper extremity patterns of injury and management at a plastic and reconstructive surgery Referral Center in Mexico City. Ann Plast Surg 2018; 80 (1): 23-26. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000001182.

4. Masnari O, Schiestl C, Rössler J, Gütlein SK, Neuhaus K, Weibel L, Meuli M, Landolt MA. Stigmatization predicts psychological adjustment and quality of life in children and adolescents with a facial difference. J Pediatr Psychol 2013; 38: 162-172.

5. Williams AJ, Powers JM, Rhodes JL, Pozez AL. Microvascular replantation following facial dog bites in children: systematic review and management algorithm. Ann Plast Surg 2018; 81 (1): 106-112. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000001485.

6. Joseph AW, Truesdale C, Baker SR. Reconstruction of the Nose. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2019; 27 (1): 43-54. doi: 10.1016/j.fsc.2018.08.006.

7. Shumrick KA, Smith TL. The anatomic basis for the design of forehead flaps in nasal reconstruction. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1992; 118 (4): 373-379.

8. Rusch MD, Grunert BK, Sanger JR, Dzwierzynski WW, Matloub HS. Psychosocial adjustment in children after traumatic disfiguring injuries: a 12-month follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 106 (7): 1451-1458.

9. Ueda K, Nuri T, Okada M, Maeda S. 28 years’ follow-up of bitten-off nose replantation performed in a 9-year-old girl. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133: 904e-905e.

10. Duteille F, Perrot P, Pannier M. Suitable age for nasal reconstruction after subtotal amputation in a child, with respect to a case involving purpura fulminans. J Ped Surg 2006; 41: 1616-1619.

11. Giugliano C, Andrades PR, Benitez S. Nasal reconstruction with a forehead flap in children younger than 10 years of age. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114: 316-325; discussion 326-328.

12. Exner K, Gohritz A, Stechl N, Gohla T. Immediate nose reconstruction by forehead flap in a 4-month-old girl with a 20-year follow-up-the oldest technique for the youngest patient. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 63: e442-444. 10.1016/j.bjps.2009.06.048.