Nasolabial pedicled compared with island flaps for intraoral reconstruction of oncological defects: complications, recovery of sensitivity, and assessment of quality of life

Abstract

Our aim was to compare pedicled and island nasolabial flaps used for reconstruction of oral defects in terms of postoperative complications, recovery of sensitivity, and quality of life. We organised a retrospective cohort study of 49 patients who had had intraoral reconstruction with nasolabial pedicled (n-=13) and island (n=36) flaps. Twenty- two patients filled in a validated quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaire and we did sensitivity tests (sharp discrimination with the aid of a Semmes-Weinstein™ aesthesiometer). Descriptive and bivariate statistics were computed and probabilities of 0.05 were accepted as significant. There were 11 flap-related complications (22%), and the flap was totally necrotic in three patients (6%), all of whom had island flaps. There was a significant association between flap-related complications and the use of reconstruction plate p=0.001, 95% CI 2.36 to 11.37) and advanced stage (T3 and T4 p=0.01, 95% CI 1.45 to 5.26). Skin sensitivity recovered in both island and pedicled flaps. Patients treated with island flaps had significantly more problems with prosthetic rehabilitation than those treated with pedicled flaps.The relatively low morbidity and adequate functional and aesthetic results make the pedicled nasolabial flap a viable technique. De-epithelialisation of the pedicle in island flaps permits coverage of defects with unilateral flaps in a one-stage reconstruction. However, the pedicle may be excessively stretched, leading to ischaemic complications.