Submental flap in reconstruction of orofacial defects

Sagüillo, Kora; García-Serrano, Guillermo; Almeida, Fernando; Núñez, Jorge; Picón, Manuel; Acero, Julio

doi:10.1016/j.maxile.2015.07.003

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, reconstruction of the midface or upper face can sometimes be limited by the length of their respective pedicles. Finally, the use of SMIF in patients requiring level I neck dissection is still debated [ 21 ], as its oncological safety and the potential risk to transfer cervical neoplastic cells to the recipient site is controversial in the literature [ 45 ]. However, recurrence is thought to be due to the aggressively of the resected tumor than the flap itself [ 46 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Free versus pedicled flaps for reconstruction of head and neck cancer defects: a systematic review

Gabrysz-Forget

Tabet

Rahal

et al. 2019

J of Otolaryngol - Head & Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe present review focuses on comparative studies of reconstruction with free flaps (FF) versus pedicled flaps (PF) after oncologic resection.MethodA systematic review was developed in compliance with PRISMA guidelines and performed using the Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE, Amed and Biosis databases.ResultsA total of 30 articles were included. FF are associated with a longer operative time, a higher cost and a higher incidence of postoperative revisions compared to PF. FF are associated with a longer stay at the intensive care unit than the supraclavicular artery island flap (SCAIF) and with a more extended hospital stay compared to the submental island flap (SMIF). FF are associated with fewer infections and necrosis compared to the pectoralis major myocutaneous flap (PMMF).ConclusionThe comparison of both type of flaps is limited by the inherent design of the studies included. In sum, FF seem superior to the PMMF for several outcomes. SMIF and SCAIF compare favorably to FF for some specific indications achieving similar outcomes at a lower cost.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%