Outcome Study after Nasal Alar/Peri-alar Subunit Reconstruction: Comparing Paramedian Forehead Flap to Nasolabial Flap

Effectiveness of Nasolabial Flap Versus Paramedian Forehead Flap for Nasal Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Different studies performed on nasal subunit reconstruction by either the nasolabial flap or the paramedian forehead flap have reported contradictory outcomes and complications, claiming one flap or the other as superior. This inconsistency has led to a gap in existing literature regarding the preferable flap for nasal reconstruction. Our aim was to statistically evaluate and compare these two flaps for nasal reconstruction, in terms of subunit preference, complications, and outcomes, using data from previous studies.

METHODS

This systematic review is reported using PRISMA protocol and was registered with the International prospective register of systematic reviews. The literature search was done using "paramedian forehead flap", "nasolabial flap", "melolabial flap", "nasal reconstruction". Data regarding demography of study and population, subunit reconstructed, complications, and aesthetic outcomes were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed using MetaXL and summary of findings using GRADEpro GDT.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies were included, and data from 2036 followed-up patients were extracted for the review. Meta-analysis was done on data from nine studies. Difference in alar reconstruction by forehead versus nasolabial flap is statistically significant [pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.3; 95% CI 0.01, 0.92; p = 0.72; I² = 0%, n = 6 studies], while for dorsum and columella reconstruction the difference is not statistically significant. Risk of alar notching is marginally more in forehead flap, however difference in incidence of partial/complete flap necrosis, alar notching and hematoma/bleeding among the flaps is not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Alar reconstruction is preferred by nasolabial flap. Complications are similar in both groups. Comparison of aesthetic outcome needs further exploration.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Multilobed flaps for intermediate and large nasal defects: Flap characteristics, patient outcomes, and provider experience at two institutions

BACKGROUND

While bilobed and trilobed transposition flaps are established workhorses for nasal reconstruction, their utility is often limited to defects less than 1.5 cm, subjecting patients to more involved multistage or cosmetically less favorable repairs. We highlight the use of bilobed and trilobed transposition flaps for intermediate (≥ 1.5 cm) and large (≥ 2.0 cm) nasal defects.

METHODS

Patients reconstructed with multilobed transposition flaps 2017-2020 were identified at two institutions. Validated scar scale (SCAR) and patient component of the patient and observer scar assessment survey (POSAS) were used to assess patient outcomes at a minimum 5-week follow-up. Statistical analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were identified with mean defect size 1.8 cm diameter. There were no major postoperative events. Scar revision was performed in 9 patients. The mean provider SCAR score was 3.06 (best possible 0, worst possible 13). The mean patient arm of the SCAR scale and POSAS were 0.07 (best possible 0, worst possible 2) and 10.93 (best possible 6, worst possible 60), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Bilobed and trilobed flaps have excellent outcomes for intermediate and large nasal defects.

Paramedian forehead flap reconstruction for skin tumors involving central subunit of face: An analysis of 37 cases

Introduction

Tumors of facial skin are common in upper part of central subunit of face. Defects after resection require a flap, which is pliable, thin, and has a good colour match. Among the various local flaps available paramedian forehead flap is a good option.

Patients and methods

Patients reconstructed with paramedian forehead flap during the period from January 2015 to March 2020 were included in the study. Data regarding the demographic, clinical characteristics, and treatment details was recorded, and analyzed for postoperative complications and cosmetic outcomes.

Results

Paramedian forehead flap reconstruction was performed in 37 patients who were resected for tumor involving upper central subunit of face. Median age of patients was 57 years. Male to female ratio was 1.4:1. All tumors were resected with a negative margin. Nodal disease was managed by superficial parotidectomy only (4/37), superficial parotidectomy along with supra-omohyoid neck dissection (6/37) and modified neck dissection (1/37). In five patients additional buccal mucosa graft was used to reconstruct conjunctiva. Additional flaps were required in two patients in whom nasolabial and mustarde flaps were used. Partial flap loss occurred in one patient. There was no major flap loss. Surgical site infection developed in only one patient, who had partial flap loss. On subjective assessment, nearly 60% patients described their appearance as good.

Conclusion

Facial reconstruction in area of dorsum of nose and medial aspect of both eyelids using paramedian forehead flaps is a simple and quick procedure.