Rashnoo Fariborz, Yegane Rooh Allah, Hassanpour Ali
Department of General and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Loghman Hakim Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Department of Surgery, Loqman-Hakim Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2024 Dec;23(6):1405-1410. doi: 10.1007/s12663-023-02093-1. Epub 2024 Jan 10.
Both nasolabial and forehead flaps are utilized for the reparation of nasal soft tissue defects that result from basal cell carcinoma. Utilizing the forehead flap needs twice operation for scar correction and flap base amputation while the nasolabial flap is a more effective one-stage technique.
This prospective study was performed on patients with BCC involving nasal tip and ala regions based on the results of the initial biopsy and was admitted to the surgery department of the Loghman-Hakim Hospital to resect the lesion.
The paramedian forehead flap, in contrast with the nasolabial flap, covers more tissue defects (nasolabial flap 14.38 mm and paramedian forehead flap 19 mm). Patients' satisfaction with the nasolabial flap was much higher than the paramedian forehead flap (nasolabial flap 94.9% and paramedian forehead flap 91.1%). The need to modify the flap donor site scar of the paramedian forehead flap was much higher than the nasolabial flap (paramedian forehead flap 100%). Infiltrative BCC tumor was the most prevalent one in both the nasolabial and paramedian forehead flaps as compared with other types of BCC (nasolabial flap 38.5% and paramedian forehead flap 54.5%).
This study aimed at comparing the nasolabial flap and paramedian forehead flap for nasal tissue defect repair caused by basal cell carcinoma, attempting to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each technique. The nasolabial flap is found to be more time-efficient, provides better patient satisfaction, and results in less noticeable scarring, while the paramedian forehead flap offers greater coverage for larger defects. Further studies are needed to assess long-term outcomes and provide more comprehensive evidence on efficacy and complications.
鼻唇瓣和额部皮瓣均用于修复基底细胞癌导致的鼻软组织缺损。使用额部皮瓣需要进行两次手术来矫正瘢痕和切断皮瓣蒂部，而鼻唇瓣是一种更有效的一期技术。
本前瞻性研究基于初始活检结果，对鼻尖和鼻翼区域基底细胞癌患者进行研究，患者入住洛格曼 - 哈基姆医院外科进行病变切除。
与鼻唇瓣相比，正中旁额部皮瓣覆盖的组织缺损更多（鼻唇瓣为14.38毫米，正中旁额部皮瓣为19毫米）。患者对鼻唇瓣的满意度远高于正中旁额部皮瓣（鼻唇瓣为94.9%，正中旁额部皮瓣为91.1%）。正中旁额部皮瓣供区瘢痕需要修整的比例远高于鼻唇瓣（正中旁额部皮瓣为100%）。与其他类型的基底细胞癌相比，浸润性基底细胞癌在鼻唇瓣和正中旁额部皮瓣中最为常见（鼻唇瓣为38.5%，正中旁额部皮瓣为54.5%）。
本研究旨在比较鼻唇瓣和正中旁额部皮瓣修复基底细胞癌所致鼻组织缺损的效果，试图突出每种技术的优缺点。结果发现，鼻唇瓣更节省时间，患者满意度更高，瘢痕更不明显，而正中旁额部皮瓣能为更大的缺损提供更大的覆盖面积。需要进一步研究来评估长期效果，并提供关于疗效和并发症的更全面证据。
