[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
December 1966


Author Affiliations

Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary Boston

Arch Otolaryngol. 1966;84(6):713. doi:10.1001/archotol.1966.00760030715022

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


To the Editor.—We were interested to hear of someone else's experience with this method of artery protection.

It should be emphasized that this type of muscle flap is being used only in instances in which wound breakdown is anticipated, namely, those in which patients have received a full course of radiation or a lesser dose of radiation but in whom other factors would make them poor healers. Age and poor nutrition are frequently associated factors in these patients.

There are too many factors involved in wound healing and fistula formation in this type of patient for us to properly assess the role that this muscle pedicle has in causing or aggravating wound breakdown. In the report of our initial series of patients only two of twelve patients developed wound disruptions which, incidentally, were not extensive, and one of these developed a small fistula which healed quickly. This does not

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview