ArticleJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2024
The Comparison Competence Nasolabial and Forehead Flap for Reparation Nasal Tissue Defect of Basal Cell Carcinoma.
Article in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: 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. Material and methods: 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. Results: 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%). Conclusion: 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.
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.