Home | About us | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Search | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact us |  Login 
National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery
Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Users Online: 96
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 37-41

Pectoralis major myocutaneous flap in head and neck reconstruction: An experience in 100 consecutive cases

1 Department of Surgical Oncology, Pt. B.D. Sharma, PGIMS, Rohtak, Haryana, India
2 Department of Surgery, Pt. B.D. Sharma, PGIMS, Rohtak, Haryana, India
3 Department of Surgical Oncology; Surgery; Pt. B.D. Sharma, PGIMS, Rohtak, Haryana, India
4 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, PGIDS, Rohtak, Haryana, India

Correspondence Address:
Mayank Tripathi
Department of Surgical Oncology, Doctors Hostel, Room No. 250, Pt. B.D. Sharma, PGIMS, Rohtak - 124 001, Haryana
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0975-5950.168225

Rights and Permissions

Background: The pectoralis major myocutaneous (PMMC) flap has been used as a versatile and reliable flap since its first description by Ariyan in 1979. In India head and neck cancer patients usually present in the advanced stage making PMMC flap a viable option for reconstruction. Although free flap using microvascular technique is the standard of care, its use is limited by the availability of expertise and resources in developing world. The aim of this study is to identify the outcomes associated with PMMC flap reconstruction. Patients and Methods: After ethical approval we retrospectively analyzed 100 PMMC flap at a tertiary care hospital from 2006 to 2013. A total of 137 PMMC flap reconstructions were performed out of which follow-up data of 100 cases were available in our record. Results: A total of 100 patients were reviewed of these 86% were of oral cavity and oropharyngeal lesions, 8% were of hypopharyngeal, 3% were of laryngeal malignancies and 3 cases were of salivary gland tumor. Most tumors (83%) were advanced (T3 or T4 lesion). 95 PMMC flap reconstruction were done as a primary procedure, and 5 were salvage procedure. PMMC flap was used to cover mucosal defect in 84 patients, skin defects in 10 patient and both in 6 patients. Overall flap related complications were 40% with a major complication in 10% and minor complications in 30%. No total flap loss occurred in any patient, major flap occurred in 6% and minor flap loss in 12%. In minor flap loss patients, necrotic changes were mostly limited to skin. Orocutaneous and pharyngocutaneous fistula developed in 12 patients. 10% patients required re-surgery after developing various flap related complications Pleural empyema developed in 3 patients. Other minor complications such as neck skin dehiscence and intra-oral flap dehiscence developed in 26 patients. Conclusion: PMMC flap is a versatile flap with an excellent reach to face oral cavity and neck region. With limited expertise and resources, it is still a workhorse flap in head and neck reconstruction.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded1089    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 21    

Recommend this journal