Reconstruction of Tongue Defects With the Contralateral Nasolabial Island Flap

Nueangkhota, P.; Liang, Yujie; Zheng, Guanghui; Su, Yu‐xiong; Liao, Guiqing

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2015.10.013

Cited by 20 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean operating time was even shorter for oral cavity reconstruction (43.18 minutes), which constituted about 81.5% of the cases. Similar outcomes have been corroborated by other studies . None of the patients in our bi‐institutional series had flap loss, orocutaneous fistula, or donor site wound dehiscence, highlighting the reliability and reproducibility of this flap.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Random nasolabial flap (NLF) has been used for decades in the reconstruction of limited oral cancer ablative defects . A modification of the NLF where the whole flap is islanded inferiorly on the facial vessels is a versatile pedicled local flap for the reconstruction of defects of multiple sites of the head neck due to the long vascular pedicle, large arc of rotation, reliability, distance from lymph nodal basins, and adequate soft tissue bulk. In this article, we present our experience of using the islanded pedicled nasolabial flap (ipNLF) from two high‐volume Indian cancer centers for reconstruction of defects of the oral cavity, oropharynx, and hypopharynx.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Versatility and Reliability of Islanded Pedicled Nasolabial Flap in Head and Neck Cancer Reconstruction

Chakrabarti¹,

Gupta²,

Gupta³

et al. 2020

The Laryngoscope

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Reconstruction of head and neck cancer ablative defects is challenging. A modification of the nasolabial flap (islanded pedicled nasolabial flap [ipNLF]) is an easy and reliable option for reconstruction of small‐ to medium‐sized defects of the head and neck, especially in resource‐constrained and high‐volume centers. Study Design and Methods We present the retrospective analysis of 27 consecutive patients reconstructed with ipNLF at two high‐volume cancer centers, Homi Bhabha Cancer Hospital, Varanasi, India; and Army Hospital Research and Referral, New Delhi, India. The functional outcomes measured were duration of weaning of feeding and tracheotomy tubes and speech assessment (speech intelligible rating score [SIR]) postsurgery. Complications assessed were flap loss, orocutaneous fistula, donor site wound dehiscence, oral incompetence, and angle of mouth deviation. Results The most common ablative defect was of the oral cavity (22 patients), followed by the oropharynx (4 patients) and hypopharynx (1 patient). The mean operating time for flap harvesting and insetting was 57.7 minutes. The mean durations for postoperative feeding tube and tracheotomy removal were 10 and 5 days, respectively. Twenty‐four subjects had SIR scores of I or II. None of the subjects had flap loss, orocutaneous fistula, or donor site wound dehiscence. Twenty‐five subjects had no oral incompetence, and 26 subjects had no or minimal angle of mouth deviation. Conclusion This is the largest series of ipNLF to date and emphasizes the versatility, reliability, reproducibility and excellent functional and acceptable cosmetic outcomes of this flap for the reconstruction of judiciously chosen head and neck ablative defects. Level of Evidence 2C Laryngoscope, 130: 1967–1972, 2020

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Versatility and Reliability of Islanded Pedicled Nasolabial Flap in Head and Neck Cancer Reconstruction

Chakrabarti¹,

Gupta²,

Gupta³

et al. 2020

The Laryngoscope

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clinical examination and imaging when indicated were performed to exclude locoregional recurrence and distal metastasis. Patient's scorings of swallowing, chewing, speech and taste were recorded using the corresponding items from the University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire Revised Version 4, 14 and as previous reported 15 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modification of the anterior‐posterior tongue rotation flap for oral tongue reconstruction

Chen

Xia

et al. 2020

Head & Neck

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Traditionally, the reconstruction of the tongue like other sites followed the reconstructive ladder; primary closure, healing by secondary intention, skin grafts, local flaps, pedicled, and free flaps. [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] PMMC (pectoralis major myocutaneous) flap is the most sought-after pedicled flap, as it is easy to harvest and is more reliable compared to other flaps. A major disadvantage of pedicled flaps is the tethering of the pedicle, which limits pliability of the flap and tongue motion and also their excess bulk.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do medial sural artery perforator flaps have better clinical outcomes compared to the rectus abdominis perforator (DIEAP) flap in reconstruction of glossectomy defects? A Prisma guided meta-analysis

Bera¹,

Tiwari²

2021

Ann Maxillofac Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is an increasing evidence for the use of thin flaps based on vascular perforators for reconstructive surgeries. The medial sural and deep inferior epigastric artery flaps offer versatility for the reconstruction of major defects of the head and neck. Objectives: “Whether medial sural artery perforator (MSAP) flap or rectus abdominis perforator flap is better for the reconstruction of glossectomy defects in terms of functional outcome?” Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov and hand searches. Participants and Interventions: Patients who underwent tongue reconstruction with either MSAP flap or deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEAP) flap. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: Based on defined study criteria 6 studies were selected according to Prisma Guidelines. The overall estimated effect was categorized as significant where P < 0.05. Results: There was no significant difference between both flaps in terms of receptor site complications ( P = 0.223). Overall odds ratio (OR) for complications was 1.35 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.412–0.736) and the test for overall effect t value was 2.836, P < 0.05. Overall OR was 6.01 (95% CI 0.5–7.45) and the test for overall effect t value was 1.41, P < 0.05 indicating there was a statistical difference in the intelligibility of speech. Limitations: Anatomical variations, under-reporting of studies and lack of universal tool for speech intelligibility. Conclusions and Implications of Key Findings: Both the flaps are comparable in terms of functional outcome. Medium-sized defects can be reconstructed with MSAP and composite larger defects would benefit from DIEAP. In females, anterolateral thigh flap still remains the choice for composite reconstructions.

show abstract

Reconstruction of Tongue Defects With the Contralateral Nasolabial Island Flap

Cited by 20 publications

References 27 publications

Versatility and Reliability of Islanded Pedicled Nasolabial Flap in Head and Neck Cancer Reconstruction

Versatility and Reliability of Islanded Pedicled Nasolabial Flap in Head and Neck Cancer Reconstruction

Modification of the anterior‐posterior tongue rotation flap for oral tongue reconstruction

Do medial sural artery perforator flaps have better clinical outcomes compared to the rectus abdominis perforator (DIEAP) flap in reconstruction of glossectomy defects? A Prisma guided meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About