Reconstruction of various perinasal defects using facial artery perforator-based nasolabial island flaps

BACKGROUND: Classical flaps for perinasal defect reconstruction, such as forehead or nasolabial flaps, have some disadvantages involving limitations of the arc of rotation and two stages of surgery. However, a perforator-based flap is more versatile and allows freedom in flap design. We introduced our experience with reconstruction using a facial artery perforator-based propeller flap on the perinasal area. We describe the surgical differences between different defect subtypes. METHODS: Between December 2005 and August 2013, 10 patients underwent perinasal reconstruction in which a facial artery perforator-based flap was used. We divided the perinasal defects into types A and B, according to location. The operative results, including flap size, arc of rotation, complications, and characteristics of the perforator were evaluated by retrospective chart review and photographic evaluation. RESULTS: Eight patients were male and 2 patients were female. Their mean age was 61 years (range, 35-75 years). The size of the flap ranged from 1 cm×1.5 cm to 3 cm×6 cm. Eight patients healed uneventfully, but 2 patients presented with mild flap congestion. However, these 2 patients healed by conservative management without any additional surgery. All of the flaps survived completely with aesthetically pleasing results. CONCLUSIONS: The facial artery perforator-based flap allowed for versatile customized flaps, and the donor site scar was concealed using the natural nasolabial fold.ope