ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2024
Oropharyngeal reconstruction with buccinator myomucosal island flaps: Functional outcomes and quality of life. A retrospective observational study.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transoral robotic reconstruction of a posterior palatal defect using an upper arm flap following polymorphous adenocarcinoma resection: a novel minimally invasive approach.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026Article
- New Classification System and Defect-Oriented Algorithm for Functional Soft-Palate Reconstruction with Buccinator Myomucosal Flaps.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Oropharyngeal reconstruction with buccinator myomucosal island flaps: Functional outcomes and quality of life. A retrospective observational study.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
- Tunnelling Versus Non-tunnelling Techniques in Posterior-based Buccinator Myomucosal Flap Reconstruction - A Prospective Study.Annals of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
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
Background: The buccinator myomucosal island flaps are an excellent option for "like with like" oropharyngeal reconstruction in selected cases. We report a series of 15 patients and discuss the functional outcomes. Methods: From January 1, 2020 to February 31, 2023, 15 patients underwent oropharyngeal tumor resection and reconstruction with myomucosal island flaps. Buccal artery myomucosal island flap and tunnelized facial artery myomucosal island flap were used in 10 and 5 patients, respectively. In four cases, a total soft palate reconstruction was performed. Before removing the nasogastric tube, a videoendoscopy was performed in all cases to assess postoperative swallowing. Functional assessment was evaluated after a follow-up of at least 12 months. Speech intelligibility and patient speech perception were assessed using the Hirose's 10-point scoring system and the Voice Handicap Index. Dysphagia was assessed using the Dysphagia Outcome and Severity Scale and the Dysphagia Handicap Index. Finally, donor site morbidity was analyzed, and quality of life was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). Results: The median length of hospital stay was 10.5 days. Nasal feeding tube was removed on average in 8.6 days after surgery, and all patients were able to tolerate an oral soft diet. Intelligibility was very good in all cases. No major complications were detected, and donor site morbidity was low. Global quality of life was acceptable in all cases. Conclusions: Buccinator myomucosal island flaps represent a very interesting and versatile option for the functional reconstruction of oropharyngeal defects up to 7-8 cm. Level of Evidence: IV.
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.