Topic: ESOPRS 2021 ePoster sessions
Time: Sep 17, 2021 16:00 Amsterdam, Berlin, Rome, Stockholm, Vienna, 15:00 London
The zoom session will be a MEETING. Please turn off your camera and mic, unless prompted by the moderators during Q&A. When you enter the meeting there will be 2 BREAKOUT ROOMS. Please choose the appropriate room to join once you have joined the meeting.
The link details are below (you need to be logged in)
You are currently not logged in. If you have an account on this website please login to your account. Not registered yet? Signup here
(plain text version here)
MODIFIED HUGHES FLAP AS RECONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE FOR LARGE DEFECTS
Author: Adam Kopecky
ePoster Number: 268
The aim of this poster is to describe the effectiveness and safety of modified Hughes flap as technique for reconstruction for large (≥90%) defects of lower eyelid.
We have retrospectively assessed the records of 169 patients who were between 2016-2020 operated at the university hospital for verified malign tumour of the lower eyelid. We have assessed if the reconstruction was primary successful and whether it needed further surgeries afterwards (e.g. for improving the position of the eyelid).
The modified Hughes flap was used in 10 cases. All the defects were very large with almost no tarsal plate left or even without any tarsal plate left. The modification was in the combination of the Hughes flap with periostal flaps, semi-circular flap, V-Y flap or with additional free skin graft. Most of the flaps were positioned eccentrically – to substitute the missing lateral or medial canthal ligamentum. All ten reconstructions were successful, without the need for further revisional surgery during follow-up time.
The classic Hughes flap is commonly used for defects in the middle of the lower eyelid. When modified in its position and combined with other local techniques, it can be a method of reconstruction of the large defects with very good functional and aesthethic results. The advantages are that even very large defects can be reconstructed with “regional” techniques of the periocular area, fast healing and good stability of newly created eyelid. The major disadvantage is the temporary cover of the eye and necessity for splitting the graft in the second step.
|First name||Last name||Base Hospital / Institution|
|Alexander C||Rokohl||Department of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany|
|Jan||Nemcansky||Ophthalmology Clinic, University Hospital Ostrava, Czech Republic|
|Ludwig M.||Heindl||Department of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany|
Abstract ID: 21-171