This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (4)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Lawrence M. Field, MD
Department of Dermatology Stanford University Medical Center Stanford, CA 94305

Arch Dermatol. 1988;124(1):20-21.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

The concept of the unipedicled subcutaneous island pedicle flap as recently reviewed is a difficult one to lay to rest.¹ All too frequently this island pedicle flap and its many variations heal with bulkiness that is visually obtrusive. In many circumstances, multiple ancillary incisions as shown in the authors' diagrams unnecessarily violate the natural lines of the face.

My disenchantment with the bulkiness brought me to a different concept than that espoused in the reference articles quoted, and by the authors themselves. Specifically, they made the statement "care must be taken not to undermine any portion of the island skin." Beginning about 1975, this precise undermining maneuver was undertaken by me to increase the mobility of the island above it (Fig 1), gradually developing the concept of dual neurovascular pedicles slanting off laterally into the subcutaneous tissue (Fig 2).² Enough dissection and freeing of the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?