ArticleBMC oral health2024
A retrospective propensity score-matched analysis of oncological and functional outcomes of submental island flap versus radial forearm free flap for oral cavity cancer reconstruction.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Oncological Safety of the Submental Artery Island Flap for Oral Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Head & neck · 2026Pooled it
- Incidence of flap-related complications in the oral reconstruction area after free flap reconstruction in patients with oral cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Free flap versus pedicled flap reconstruction in head and neck surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.JPRAS open · 2026Review
- Vein-protection-first strategy revolutionizes submental artery perforator flap harvest success: the A-B-C technique and training assessment.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Oral Diet Outcomes and Tracheostomy Avoidance After Submental Flap Reconstruction of Oral and Oropharyngeal Defects.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis retrospective study aims to compare the oncological and functional outcomes of the submental island flap versus the radial forearm free flap used for oral cavity cancer reconstruction after minimizing differences in baseline characteristics.
methodsPropensity scores for each oral cavity cancer patient who underwent surgical resection and immediate reconstruction with a submental island flap or a radial forearm free flap with a flap size ≤ 60 cm
resultsThe final matched-pair analysis included 51 patients in each group. The 5-year overall survival, disease-specific survival, and locoregional control rates were 70.1% and 64.8% (p = 0.612), 77.3% and 83.7% (p = 0.857), and 76.1% and 73.3% (p = 0.664), respectively, for the submental island flap group and the radial forearm free flap group. Speech and swallowing functions were comparable between groups. However, there were significantly lower rates of complication associated with both donor and recipient sites in the submental island flap group, and also the duration of hospital stays and hospital costs were significantly lower in these patients. A subgroup analysis of patients in which the reconstruction was carried out using the submental island flap procedure revealed that in selected cases, the presence of clinically and pathologically positive level I lymph nodes did not affect survival or locoregional control rates.
conclusionsAlthough this study was not randomized, the matched-pair analysis of surgically treated oral cavity cancer patients showed that submental island flap reconstruction is as effective as radial forearm free flap reconstruction with regard to oncological and functional outcomes with lower complication rates, hospital stay, and hospital costs. This flap can be safely and effectively performed in selected cases with a clinical level I lymph node smaller than 1.5 cm and no signs of extranodal extension.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.