4.7 Article

Long-Term Outcomes of Microsurgical Reconstruction for Large Tracheal Defects

Journal

CANCER
Volume 117, Issue 4, Pages 802-808

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25492

Keywords

tracheal reconstruction; radial forearm flap; tracheal tumor; thyroid cancer; tracheal stent; air leak

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Reconstruction of large tracheal defects has been largely unsuccessful. The purpose of this study was to review the authors' experience with microsurgical reconstruction of these defects. METHODS: Seven cases of microsurgical tracheal reconstruction were performed between May 2002 and April 2008. All but 1 patient had recur, rent thyroid cancer; the other patient had primary adenocystic carcinoma of the trachea. The radial forearm free flap was used for lining in all cases. Rigid support was provided with a variety of prosthetic materials. RESULTS: All defects involved the cervical trachea, with an average length of 5.8 cm +/- 1.0 cm (range, 5 cm-7.5 cm). The width of defects ranged from half of the tracheal circumference to the entire circumference. Major complications included air leak in 4 patients, exposure and removal of prosthesis in 2 patients, and cardiopulmonary complications in 2 patients. One patient with postoperative retroperitoneal hematoma, abdominal compartment syndrome, and multiple organ failure died 2 months after surgery. Two patients died of other causes 1 year and 4 years, respectively, after surgery. The other 4 patients were alive and disease free, with follow-up ranging from 1 to 4.5 years. Four patients are asymptomatic, with normal speech and swallowing functions. Two patients remained tracheostomy dependent, but vocal ability was intact. All patients tolerated a regular diet. CONCLUSIONS: Microsurgical reconstruction is a viable option in selected patients with large cervical tracheal defects that are beyond primary repair. Cancer 2011;117:802-8. (C) 2010 American Cancer Society.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available