A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Oral Reconstruction with Locoregional Flaps after Cancer Ablation: A Systematic Review of the Literature. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • - The planning for oral reconstruction post-tumor removal is critical for head and neck surgeons, focusing on the size of the defect and the complex anatomy of the oral cavity.
  • - A systematic review examined four types of locoregional flaps used for reconstruction: infrahyoid, nasolabial, platysma, and submental, involving a total of 139 articles and 5898 patients.
  • - Medium-sized oral defects were the most common, with flap necrosis being a rare complication, and overall, locoregional flaps showed positive functional and aesthetic outcomes.

Article Abstract

: The planning of oral reconstruction after tumor resection is a pivotal point for head and neck surgeons. It is mandatory to consider two aspects: the size of the surgical defect and the complexity of the oral cavity as an anatomical region. We offer a review of the literature that focuses on four types of locoregional flaps that can be profitably used for such reconstruction: infrahyoid (IF), nasolabial (NF), platysma (PF), and submental (SF). : The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This systematic review was carried out according to the PICOS acronym through a comprehensive electronic search on PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases. For each selected article, we extrapolated eight main parameters, of which all mean values were compared through an ANOVA test. The dimensions of the oral defects were referred to as "small" (<7 cm), "medium" (7-50 cm), or "large" (>50 cm). : A total of 139 articles were selected with a total of 5898 patients. The mean ages for each type of flap were not statistically significant ( = 0.30, > 0.05). Seven sublocations of oral defects were reported: The most common was the tongue (2003 [34.0%] patients), followed by the floor of the mouth (1786 [30.4%]), buccal mucosa (981 [16.6%]), cheek (422 [7.2%]), hard palate (302 [5.1%]), alveolar ridge (217 [3.7%]), and retromolar trigone (187 [3.2%]). The defects were mainly medium-sized (4507 [76.4%] patients), and fewer were small-sized (1056 [17.9%]) or large-sized (335 [5.7%]). Complications were noted, the most frequent of which was flap necrosis, seen in 0.57% of cases. The functional and esthetical results were mainly positive. Locoregional flaps represent a good alternative in medium-sized defects as well as a fairly good alternative in small- and large-sized defects when other options are ruled out.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11278209PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm13144181DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

locoregional flaps
12
oral reconstruction
8
systematic review
8
review literature
8
oral defects
8
good alternative
8
oral
5
defects
5
reconstruction locoregional
4
flaps cancer
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!