Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2017; 33(05): 526-529
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1606333
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

A Comparison of the Double-Half Bilobe Flap to the Traditional Bilobe Flap: Cohort Analysis of a Single Surgeon Experience

Brandon J. Baird
1   Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
,
Sami P. Moubayed
1   Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
,
Sam P. Most
1   Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 September 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The double-half bilobe flap was initially described by the senior author (S.P.M.) in 2012 to address defects of the midline nasal tip typically after ablative carcinoma resection. It is a unique reconstructive option for the nasal tip, as it does not depend on a unilateral tissue advancement vector, instead using bilateral and opposing vectors to maintain symmetry. In this retrospective cohort series, we evaluated patient- and physician-derived outcomes and baseline characteristics from a group of 17 patients that underwent reconstruction with the double-half bilobe flap. A control group of 65 patients that underwent traditional bilobe reconstruction for defects of one nasal subunit (tip, side wall, or dorsum) was used for comparison. Outcome measures included infection, symmetry, pin-cushioning, scarring, reoperation, and adjunct procedures. Also, patient satisfaction was evaluated by using frequency of follow-up as a surrogate for patient discontentment with aesthetic outcome. The double-half bilobe flap provides improved symmetry and otherwise similar overall outcomes compared with the traditional bilobe flap, and should be considered as a primary option for the reconstruction of midline nasal tip defects less than 15 mm in diameter.

Keywords

bilobe flap - skin cancer - reconstruction - local flap
 

  • References

  • 1 Zitelli JA. The bilobed flap for nasal reconstruction. Arch Dermatol 1989; 125 (07) 957-959
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Burget G. Creating a nasal form with flaps and grafts. In: Bardach J. , ed. Local Flaps and Free Skin Grafts. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby–Year Book; 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Park SS. Cutaneous lesions and facial reconstruction. In: Park SS. , ed. Facial Plastic Surgery: The Essential Guide. New York, NY: Thieme; 2005: 61-115
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Cook JL. Reconstructive utility of the bilobed flap: lessons from flap successes and failures. Dermatol Surg 2005; 31 (8 Pt 2): 1024-1033
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Greinert R. Skin cancer: new markers for better prevention. Pathobiology 2009; 76 (02) 64-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Baker SR, Johnson TM, Nelson BR. The importance of maintaining the alar-facial sulcus in nasal reconstruction. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995; 121: 617
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Woodard CR, Most SP. The double-half bilobe flap: an alternative for midline defects of the tip and supratip region. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012; 147 (04) 668-670
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Burget GC, Menick FJ. Aesthetic Reconstruction of the Nose. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Baker SR. Contemporary aspects of nasal reconstruction. In: Myers E, Krause CJ. , eds. Advances in Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery. Vol. 12. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 1998: 235-261
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Simons RL. Adjunctive measures in rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1975; 8 (03) 717-742
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Marschall MA. Bilobed flap in head and neck reconstruction. In: Bardach J. , ed. Local Flaps and Free Skin Grafts. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby–Year Book; 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Baker SR. Nasal cutaneous flaps. In: Bardach J. , ed. Local Flaps and Free Skin Grafts. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby–Year Book; 2002
    Google Scholar