ReviewCureus2025
Free Tissue Transfer Versus Locoregional Flaps for the Reconstruction of Small and Moderate Defects in the Head and Neck Region: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vein-protection-first strategy revolutionizes submental artery perforator flap harvest success: the A-B-C technique and training assessment.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Adipofascial Infragluteal Perforator Flap for Total Parotidectomy Reconstruction: A Novel Application for Inconspicuous Donor and Recipient Site-Preliminary Results.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Lean Management in Medium-Sized Oral Cavity Defect Reconstruction: Facial Artery Musculomucosal Flaps Versus Free Flaps.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
Reconstructive surgery for oral cavity defects has progressed from early pedicled locoregional flaps, like the pectoralis major myocutaneous flap, to sophisticated microvascular free flaps, driven by the need to restore critical functions such as speech, swallowing, and chewing, alongside aesthetic outcomes essential for patient quality of life. This narrative review compares the effectiveness, outcomes, and current roles of microvascular free flaps versus locoregional flaps in reconstructing small to moderate oral cavity defects. A narrative literature review was conducted, analyzing retrospective studies, meta-analyses, and clinical series, focusing on flap success rates, functional and aesthetic outcomes, complications, and resource utilization for key flaps, including radial forearm free flap (RFFF), anterolateral thigh flap (ALT), submental island flap (SMIF), supraclavicular artery island flap (SCAIF), and facial artery musculomucosal (FAMM) flap. Microvascular free flaps achieve high success rates and excel in complex three-dimensional reconstructions, offering superior functional outcomes, but demand prolonged operative times, specialized expertise, and significant resources, limiting their feasibility in low-resource settings. Locoregional flaps provide comparable success for smaller defects, with shorter operative times, lower costs, and suitability for high-risk patients. Both approaches yield favorable aesthetic results when appropriately selected, with locoregional flaps offering better tissue matching in facial reconstructions. Free flaps remain the gold standard for complex defects, while locoregional flaps are effective, cost-efficient alternatives for smaller defects, particularly in comorbid patients or resource-constrained environments. Clinical decisions should consider defect complexity, patient health, and institutional capabilities, with future advancements in tissue engineering and surgical training poised to enhance outcomes and accessibility. The aim of this review is to clarify the differences between the traditionally used locoregional flaps and the more recent microvascular free flaps.
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.