PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10783445

Pull-through technique of scapular osteocutaneous flap to decrease frequency of positioning change.

Abstract

During reconstructions of the head and neck regions with a scapular or a scapular osteocutaneous flap, it is usually necessary to reposition the patient twice and prepare the operating field three times for removal of tumor, harvesting the flap, and reconstruction. This is one of the main disadvantages of the scapular flap. We have used the pull-through technique to reduce the number of changes in position that are required. In addition, the ischaemic time of the flap is also substantially reduced. The flap is first raised and then tunneled through the axilla to lie passively on the chest while the tumor is excised. These procedures have been followed in 13 cases of scapular and scapular osteocutaneous flap with no problems.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K Hasegawa, H Miyamoto, K Fujita. 2000. Pull-through technique of scapular osteocutaneous flap to decrease frequency of positioning change.. https://doi.org/10.1054/bjom.1999.0171

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Relationship of sentinel and axillary level I-II lymph nodes to tangential fields used in breast irradiation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the volume of nodal irradiation associated with breast-conserving therapy, we defined the anatomic relationship of sentinel lymph nodes and axillary level I and II lymph nodes in patients receiving tangential breast irradiation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective analysis of 65 simulation fields in women with breast cancer treated with sentinel lymph node surgery and 39 women in whom radiopaque clips demarcated the extent of axillary lymph node dissection was performed. We measured the relationship of the surgical clips to the anatomic landmarks and calculated the percentage of prescribed dose delivered to the sentinel lymph node region. RESULTS: A cranial field edge 2.0 cm below the humeral head the sentinel lymph node region was included or at the field edge in 95% of the cases and the entire extent of axillary I and II dissection in 43% of the axillary dissection cases. In the remaining 57%, this field border encompassed an average of 80% of cranial/caudal extent of axillary level I and II dissection. In 98.5% of the cases, all sentinel lymph nodes were anterior to the deep field edge and 71% were anterior to the chest wall-interface, whereas 61% of the axillary dissection cohort had extension deep to the chest wall-lung interface. If the deep field edge had been set 2 cm below the chest wall-lung interface, the entire axillary dissection would have been included in 82% of the cases, and the entire sentinel lymph node would have been covered with a 0.5-cm margin. The median dose to the sentinel lymph node region was 98% of the prescribed dose. CONCLUSIONS: By extending the cranial border to 2 cm below the humeral head and 2 cm deep to the chest wall-lung interface, the radiotherapy fields used to treat the breast can include the sentinel lymph node region and most of axillary levels I and II.

Axilla↗

[Management of the axilla in breast cancer: evidences and unresolved issues].

In this study the evidences governing the management of the axilla were examined and on the base of these evidences, the optimal clinical practice was outlined. Computerized searches for publications, debating specific treatment of axilla, were done of MEDLINE data. Level of evidence was determined using standard criteria: 1. metaanalysis of randomized trials, 2. randomized trial, 3. prospective and retrospective studies, 4. reports and opinion of expert committees and working teams. The probability of lymph node involvement is related directly to the size of the primary tumour, and even with small tumour (up to 10 mm), the risk of nodal metastases is in the order of 10-20%. To date, the best strategy for determining complete lymph node status (qualitative and quantitative information) is through axillary dissection. For an accurate staging, at least ten nodes have to be obtained. Formal axillary sampling does not provide total quantitative data in patients with involved axilla. Sentinel node biopsy is a promising alternative to axillary dissection for staging but it is still under way. Axillary dissection should be omitted in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ since the probability of nodal involvement is less than 1%. In invasive breast cancer, the risk of axillary recurrence in the untreated axilla varies from about 10% to 40%. For women with stage I-II breast cancer at least level I and II axillary node dissection should be offered as the standard procedure to reduce the risk of regional recurrence. Women at high risk of axillary recurrence (> or = 4 involved nodes, < 6 nodes were obtained from a positive axilla) will require axillary irradiation after axillary dissection. However, there is a lack of higher level evidence to support the benefit of post-dissection axillary irradiation. Evidences suggest that axillary irradiation is as effective as axillary dissection in preventing regional recurrence. The following factors have to be considered for decisions regarding dissection or irradiation: patient wishes, general condition, age, the necessity of pathological nodal status for systemic therapy and the risk of post-treatment morbidity. At this time, there is no well defined subgroup of patients in whom axillary intervention can be safely omitted. In selected patients with clinically negative axilla, the decision to observe the axilla rather than use surgery or irradiation should be made jointly between the women and her specialists (surgeon, radiation and medical oncologist). The benefits of axillary treatment in prolonging survival are unclear. Studies have reported different effects on survival. Until evidences remain insufficient, the risk of axillary recurrence has to be minimized, and more and more patients have to be provide to get treatments in randomized clinical trials. Patient should be fully informed about the benefits and the potential side effects of treatments. A combination of radiotherapy and axillary dissection results an increased morbidity rate compared with either alone.

Axilla↗

Evaluation of level I and II axillary nodes included in the standard breast tangential fields and calculation of the administered dose: results of a prospective study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate if Level I and II axillary nodes are included in the standard breast tangential fields, and to calculate the dose administered. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 35 patients treated with conservative surgery and axillary dissection, three clips were surgically positioned: one at the beginning of Level I, one between Level I and II, and another at the end of Level II. The breast was irradiated with two tangential fields. On simulation films, the volume between the clips was scored as "entirely included" or "not entirely included" in the treatment fields. Computed tomography (CT) scans were performed; CT data were imported into a treatment planning system, and three-dimensional plans were devised. Axillary Levels I and II were delineated on CT slices on the basis of anatomic landmarks. Fields and isodose curves previously obtained were superimposed to calculate the dose administered to the first two axillary node levels and to 90% of both volumes. RESULTS: On X-rays, the volume between clips corresponding to Level I was completely included in the medial field in 66.7% of cases and in the lateral field in 63.7% of cases, whereas the volume of Level II was entirely included in the medial field in 54.5% of cases and in the lateral field in 45.4% of cases. The median dose administered to Level I and II was 38.58 Gy +/- 11.01 (range 3.46-47.14) and 20.65 Gy +/- 14.07 (range 0.95-38.94), respectively. The median dose to 90% of both volumes of Level I and II was 6.75 Gy +/- 14.01 (range 1.9-39) and 1.75 Gy +/- 9.72 (range 0.8-29), respectively. CONCLUSION: The standard tangential fields do not entirely include Levels I and II axillary nodes.

Axilla↗