Home  -  About us  -  Editorial board  -  Search  -  Ahead of print  -  Current issue  -  Archives  -  Instructions  -  Subscribe  -  Contacts  -  Advertise - Login 
 
 
     

 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE - EVALUATIVE STUDY
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 180-187

A study on dorsal pedicled tongue flap closure of palatal fistulae and oronasal communications


Command Military Dental Centre (Northern Command), Udhampur, Jammu and Kashmir, India

Date of Web Publication22-Nov-2017

Correspondence Address:
Priya Esther Jeyaraj
Command Military Dental Centre (Northern Command), Udhampur, Jammu and Kashmir
India
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/ams.ams_94_17

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Introduction: Residual defects of the palatal region following ablative resection of tumors and Gunshot wounds (GSWs) of the maxillofacial region can be quite painstaking, daunting and challenging to reconstruct, due to the extent and composite nature of the tissue loss. A shortage of available donor areas and local flap options in the intraoral region, add to the difficulty. Further compounding the situation, are factors such as excessive fibrosis and scarring of the palatal tissues as a result of multiple previous surgeries in the region. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Dorsal Pedicled Tongue Flap in the reconstruction of complex palatal defects resulting from maxillofacial GSWs and ablative tumor resections. To also device techniques to reduce the incidence of postoperative tongue flap detachment, thus improving its efficiency and reliability. Results: The palatal fistulas in all the patients were closed successfully, with no post-operative complications such as bleeding, hematoma formation, congestion, infection, partial or total flap necrosis or flap detachment. The tongue flap at the recipient site remained healthy with no recurrence of the fistula in any of the patients in the two years follow up period. There was a complete resolution of the problem of nasal regurgitation of orally ingested fluids and food particles. There was observed no deformity or articulation defect resulting from the flap harvested from the tongue dorsum, in any of the patients. Conclusion: In GSWs and tumor ablative surgery, where composite tissue defects are involved, the tongue provides a reliable and efficient means of restoring lost tissue bulk as well as ensuring a permanent closure and sealing off of the oronasal fistulas. Its reliability can be further increased by avoiding a common complication, namely, flap detachment in the postoperative period brought on by movements of the tongue, by immobilizing the tongue by tethering it to the maxillary teeth and also, maintaining the patient on Nasogastric feeding for the three weeks postoperative period, until the patient is taken up for surgical separation the pedicle. This helps to ensure a successful and predictable take of the flap at the donor site.

Keywords: Gunshot wounds, intraoral reconstruction, palatal fistula, tongue flap


How to cite this article:
Jeyaraj PE. A study on dorsal pedicled tongue flap closure of palatal fistulae and oronasal communications. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2017;7:180-7

How to cite this URL:
Jeyaraj PE. A study on dorsal pedicled tongue flap closure of palatal fistulae and oronasal communications. Ann Maxillofac Surg [serial online] 2017 [cited 2017 Dec 14];7:180-7. Available from: http://www.amsjournal.com/text.asp?2017/7/2/180/218983




  Introduction Top


Oronasal communications are often encountered following trauma, ablative resection for tumors, gunshot injuries, and, most commonly, after previous attempts at closure of palatal and/or alveolar clefts.

Reconstruction of intraoral defects is of great importance to preserve the unique anatomy and functions of the oral cavity such as mastication, taste, swallowing, control and disposal of saliva, and phonation.[1] Tissue defects in the oral region should be replaced with tissues, which have the best anatomical, histological, and functional similarity. Therefore, neighboring tissues seem to be the best donor site alternative.[2] Intraoral local flaps, including palatal island flap, buccinator myomucosal flap, facial artery musculomucosal flap, and buccal fat pad flap, have been used in the past to reconstruct intraoral defects.[3] The location and size of the intraoral defect would determine the reconstruction method of choice, such as primary closure, mucosal or skin grafts, local and regional flaps, and free tissue transfers.[4]

Due to the inadequacy of tissue around anterior palatal fistulas, local mucoperiosteal flaps are of limited value in their closure. In such cases, tongue flaps have been found extremely useful in intraoral defect reconstruction.[5]

In this case series, the value of the dorsal pedicled tongue flap in the successful closure of residual oronasal fistulas following gunshot wounds (GSWs) and tumor ablation has been presented.


  Case Series Top


Two adult male patients, of ages 25 and 27, respectively, reported with complaints of escape of air into the mouth while breathing, nasal regurgitation of food and fluids, halitosis, and a hypernasality in their voices. History revealed that they had sustained gunshot injuries to the face in separate incidents, 18 and 20 months ago, for which they had been operated [Figure 1] and [Figure 2]. Healing of the wounds had been satisfactory following surgery, except for the persisting oronasal communications [Figure 3] and [Figure 4], which was the cause for their presenting complaints. On examination, each of the patients had a through-and-through palatal defect of 1.5 and 2 cm, respectively. The surrounding palatal tissues appeared scarred and fibrosed [Figure 3]c, [Figure 3]d and [Figure 4]a.
Figure 1: (a-d) A case of gunshot injury of the maxillofacial region. Fractured maxillae widely splayed apart with tearing and destruction of the palatal tissues. (e-h) Open reduction and internal fixation of fractured maxilla, mandible, and nasoethmoid complex carried out together with soft-tissue closure

Click here to view
Figure 2: (a-h) Panfacial fractures sustained in a gunshot injury, managed by open reduction and semirigid internal fixation, with primary closure of the soft-tissue injuries

Click here to view
Figure 3: (a-d) Patient presented 18 months later with a persisting residual palatal fistula. (e-h) Computed tomography scans revealing the composite anterior palatal defect with the resultant wide oronasal communication

Click here to view
Figure 4: (a-c) Twenty months following surgery, the patient presented with a large residual oronasal fistula. The palate appeared pale, scarred, and fibrosed, and the tongue had multiple scarred areas owing to the old bullet injury through these tissues. (d and e) Tongue flap outlined, fibrotic mass excised from the tongue dorsum. (f-j) Anteriorly based flap raised and the donor site closed with resorbable sutures. (k and l) Flap flipped upward and sutured to the freshened margins of the palatal defect. The tongue was then tethered to the upper teeth to restrain its movements in the postoperative period

Click here to view


The third patient, aged 24 years, had been operated for pleomorphic adenoma of the minor salivary glands in the anterior palate region [Figure 5]a,[Figure 5]b,[Figure 5]c,[Figure 5]d,[Figure 5]e. Following the wide local excision that was carried out, he developed a persistent oronasal communication [Figure 5]f,[Figure 5]g,[Figure 5]h.
Figure 5: (a and b) A 24-year-old patient with a nonhealing ulcer of insidious onset in the hard palate region, diagnosed as pleomorphic adenoma of minor salivary gland. (c-e) Computed tomography scan revealed bony erosion of the anterior hard palate, as indicated by the white arrows. (f-h) Wide local excision carried out which included both surrounding safe margins of palatal mucosa as well as palatal bone, thus creating a oronasal communication. Histopathological examination of excised tissue confirmed the diagnosis and ruled out any evidence of malignancy

Click here to view


Anterior nasal turbulence, namely, the Frication-like noise produced on forceful blowing of the nose, a perceptual attribute of anterior nasal defect/incompetence, was observed in all these cases. Both the mirror test and straw test were employed to perceptually evaluate the degree of nasal emission and hypernasality, which were then accordingly classified as moderate in all these three patients.

In all these three patients, the feasibility of local palatal mucoperiosteal flaps for reconstruction of the defect was ruled out due to the traumatized, scarred, fibrosed, and inadequate quality of the palatal tissues. An anteriorly based dorsal pedicled tongue flap seemed to be the most viable option, and the patients were explained as to the procedure and the postoperative limitations in speech and eating unit that they would experience, until a surgical detachment of the pedicle.

In all the patients, the first surgical session was carried out under general anesthesia. The palatal defect was closed with the tongue flap after freshening the margins of the recipient site [Figure 4], [Figure 6] and [Figure 7]. Following suturing of the dorsal tongue flap in place, three silk sutures were drawn through the tongue, one at its tip and one through each of its lateral borders and each suture was slung around the nearest upper tooth and tied, thus adapting the tongue to the palate and reducing the traction on the attachment of the dorsal tongue flap, thereby preventing its detachment and further stabilizing the flap in place [Figure 6]h,[Figure 6]i,[Figure 6]j. All three patients were maintained on Ryle's tube nasogastric feeding for 21 days postoperatively. This was done to minimize movements of the tongue that would otherwise be unavoidable while eating/drinking and swallowing. Oral hygiene measures were undertaken using saline mouth rinses as well as gentle teeth cleaning using a finger with some toothpaste.
Figure 6: (a-d) An anteriorly based dorsal pedicled tongue flap outlined and raised, with simultaneous primary closure of the donor site defect. (e-g) Flap upturned and sutured at the palatal defect after adequate freshening of the margins of the recipient site. (h) The tongue was then tethered to the maxillary teeth. (i-l) Cutting of the flap pedicle carried out under local anesthesia, on the 22nd postoperative day

Click here to view
Figure 7: (a-j) Residual palatal fistula resulted in a troublesome and persistent oronasal communication. Closure of the palatal defect carried out after freshening its margins, using the anteriorly based dorsal pedicled tongue flap

Click here to view


The patients were taken up under local anesthesia on the 22nd postoperative day for the second surgical session, namely, transection of the pedicle [Figure 6]i,[Figure 6]j,[Figure 6]k,[Figure 6]l, [Figure 8]a,[Figure 8]b,[Figure 8]c,[Figure 8]d and [Figure 9]a,[Figure 9]b,[Figure 9]c,[Figure 9]d. The palatal fistulas in all the patients healed successfully [Figure 5]e, [Figure 5]f, [Figure 7]e,[Figure 7]f,[Figure 7]g,[Figure 7]h and [Figure 9]e,[Figure 9]f,[Figure 9]g,[Figure 9]h, with no postoperative complications such as bleeding, hematoma formation, congestion, infection, partial or total flap necrosis, or flap detachment. The tongue flap at the recipient site remained healthy with no recurrence of the fistula in any of the patients in the 2-year follow-up period. Their phonation improved dramatically, and there was a complete resolution of the problem of nasal regurgitation of orally ingested fluids and food particles. There was observed no deformity or articulation defect resulting from the flap harvested from the tongue dorsum, in any of the patients [Figure 8]f, [Figure 9]h and [Figure 10]g.
Figure 8: (a-d) Depedicling of the tongue flap carried out under local anesthesia on the 22nd postoperative day. (e and f) Appearance after 2 months, showing a sturdy flap effectively sealing off the oronasal communication and filling the palatal defect. Good mucosal texture match with the adjacent tissues. Barely perceptible donor site on the tongue

Click here to view
Figure 9: (a-d) Separation of the pedicle carried out on the 22nd postoperative day. (e-h) Two weeks and 2 months postoperative appearance showing an excellent take of the flap and no residual deformity of the tongue

Click here to view
Figure 10: (a-f) Appearance on the 3rd, 7th, and 15th days following cutting of the pedicle, showing a sturdy and healthy tongue flap successfully obliterating the palatal defect. Minimal scarring of the donor site, with the tongue retaining its full movements and functions. (g and h) Appearance after 2 months, showing the fully recovered donor site and an excellent color and texture match of the tongue flap at the recipient site, with the adjacent palatal mucosa

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


The anteriorly based dorsal tongue flap was introduced by Guerrero-Santos and Altamirano in 1966 for the surgical closure of a large palatal fistula.[6] In 1972, Assuncao described the rich submucous vascular plexus in the tongue and demonstrated that tongue flaps could be increased safely in any direction, even when only 3-mm thick.[7] Eiselsberg was the first to use the tongue in the reconstruction of the oral cavity.[8] Lexer reported the first posteriorly based pedicled tongue flap for coverage of a retromolar trigone defect occurring after oncological surgery.[9] The tongue flap when compared to other reconstructive options, such as palatal and buccal flaps, mucoperiosteal island flaps, tubed pedicled flaps, nasolabial flaps, temporalis muscle flaps, and radial forearm free flaps, has the advantage of an abundant vascular structure with significantly decreased rates of fistula recurrence after surgery. The second advantage of dorsal tongue flaps is the ease of planning the flap in sufficient length, width, and depth needed for the location and dimension of the fistula.[7] The tongue flap has the advantage of giving a good volume by adding muscular tissue.[10]

Although the tongue flap is an extremely versatile and efficient means of closure of anterior as well as posterior, unilateral, and bilateral palatal defects and effectively functionally obliterates the oronasal communication, it has a few drawbacks. The main disadvantages of the tongue flap are the need for a second surgical procedure to detach the pedicle and the need for patient's compatibility with the procedure due to a functional loss-like difficulty in swallowing and speech due to the immobile tongue till depedicling.

Flap dehiscence and detachment during the early postoperative period is a troublesome complication due to tongue movements during normal activities such as speaking, swallowing, yawning, and coughing. The unbridled tongue exhibits vigorous and continuous movements that often tug at the pedicle and result in flap detachment. Another disadvantage is the peroral appearance of the repaired area and the tongue tissue appearing bulky, rough, and rather unnatural in the roof of the mouth. This article describes some of the methods which can be used to alleviate these problems. In this study, all the patients were kept on Ryles nasogastric tube feeding for 21 days until separation of the pedicle. This was done with the aim to help keep the tongue as immobile as possible, with the flap securely adapted at the defect site, to give it the best chance to take uninterrupted, and to reduce the chances of flap detachment in the postoperative period. All the patients were able to accommodate well with the procedure, and there was no issue at all with patient compliance. Further, all the patients were maintained on Ryle's nasogastric tube feeding for the 3-week postoperative period, until the patient is taken up for surgical separation of the pedicle, which helped to ensure a successful and predictable take of the flap at the donor site, by limiting the tongue movement due to chewing, swallowing, etc.


  Conclusion Top


The tongue is an excellent donor site for oral soft-tissue reconstruction, especially for the closure of palatal fistulas due to its proximity to all intraoral structures and texture match, highly vascular and sturdy structure, bulkiness of the subjacent muscle, and less donor site morbidity. The few drawbacks that are encountered occasionally, such as flap detachment and dehiscence, can be prevented by ensuring the minimal mobility of the tongue in the early postoperative period. Its reliability can be further increased by avoiding a common complication, namely, tongue flap detachment in the postoperative period brought on by movements of the tongue, by immobilizing the tongue by tethering it to the maxillary teeth, and also, by maintaining the patient on nasogastric feeding for the 3-week postoperative period, until the patient is taken up for surgical separation of the pedicle. This helps to ensure a successful and predictable take of the flap at the donor site.

In GSWs and tumor ablative surgery, where composite tissue defects are involved, the tongue provides a reliable and efficient means of restoring lost tissue bulk as well as ensuring a permanent closure and sealing off of the oronasal fistulas.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Ceran C, Demirseren ME, Sarici M, Durgun M, Tekin F. Tongue flap as a reconstructive option in intraoral defects. J Craniofac Surg 2013;24:972-4.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Joshi A, Rajendraprasad JS, Shetty K. Reconstruction of intraoral defects using facial artery musculomucosal flap. Br J Plast Surg 2005;58:1061-6.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Buchbinder D, St-Hilaire H. Tongue flaps in maxillofacial surgery. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2003;15:475-86, v.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
de Bree R, Rinaldo A, Genden EM, Suárez C, Rodrigo JP, Fagan JJ, et al. Modern reconstruction techniques for oral and pharyngeal defects after tumor resection. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008;265:1-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Pigott RW, Rieger FW, Moodie AF. Tongue flap repair of cleft palate fistulae. Br J Plast Surg 1984;37:285-93.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Guerrero-Santos J, Altamirano JT. The use of lingual flaps in repair of fistulas of the hard palate. Plast Reconstr Surg 1966;38:123-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.
Assunçao AG. The design of tongue flaps for the closure of palatal fistulas. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993;91:806-10.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
von Domarus H. The double-door tongue flap for total cheek mucosa defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988;82:351-6.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]    
9.
Chicarilli ZN. Sliding posterior tongue flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 1987;79:697-700.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]    
10.
Guerrerosantos J, Trabanino C. Lower lip reconstruction with tongue flap in paramedian bilateral congenital sinuses. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002;109:236-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8], [Figure 9], [Figure 10]



 

Top
 
 
Search
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
   Abstract
  Introduction
  Case Series
  Discussion
  Conclusion
   References
   Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed90    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded37    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal