ReviewCureus2025
Complications Following Local-Flap Lip Reconstruction After Tumor Removal: A Systematic 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comments on "Basics and Applications of the Fusuma Sliding Flap: A Versatile Method for Reconstruction of Full-thickness Defects of the Lower Lip".Journal of plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
- Two strip flap technique for total lower lip reconstruction: case report.Frontiers in 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Local flap reconstruction plays a critical role in managing defects following lip tumor removal. The aim of this review is to evaluate complications associated with local flap reconstruction for lip tumor removal. A systematic review was conducted utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The PubMed (MEDLINE) database was queried from 2014 to 2024 with the following keywords: ("lip reconstruction" OR "cheiloplasty" OR "local flap") AND ("outcomes" OR "functional" OR "postoperative" OR "complications" OR "clinical"). Only retrospective and prospective studies, case series, randomized controlled trials, original research, and studies with patients requiring local flap reconstruction for tumor removal were included. We excluded studies that were related to cleft lip reconstruction, lip infection, burns, arteriovenous malformations (AVM), animal studies, technical reports, cadaveric studies, case reports, and review articles. After removal of duplicates and screening of titles, abstracts, and full-length text, 18 of the 749 initial articles were included in this review. The mean age across the articles was 66 ± 8 years (253 males; 124 females) with an average follow-up time of 23 ± 10 months. All of the studies included patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and only six of them analyzed patients with basal cell carcinoma (BCC). All studies included patients with bottom lip pathology, and only three with top lip pathology. The mean complication rate was 8% across the studies. The most common reported complication was wound dehiscence (9/18), followed by paresthesias (7/18), microstomia (5/18), sialorrhea (4/18), and flap necrosis (2/18). The most common local flaps included: seven instances of Karapandzic, four instances of Abbe flaps, one case of Yu flap, two instances of step technique flaps, one case of Gillies flap, and two mentions of Webster flaps. Complications were reported in nine of the 19 articles. Local flap techniques provide favorable aesthetic and functional outcomes in lip reconstruction. However, current outcome measures vary widely, often including aesthetic evaluations, functional assessments, and complication rates, without standardized reporting. To enhance comparability and improve practice, surgeons should adopt standardized frameworks for reporting outcomes, such as validated tools for aesthetic and functional assessment (e.g., FACE-Q, PROMIS). Incorporating pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcomes, uniform complication classifications, and multi-center data collaboration will enable more consistent evidence-based decision-making and optimize patient care. Future studies should seek to utilize these practices for uniform reporting and improving patient outcomes.
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.