ReviewCancers2025
Reconstruction of the Oral Cavity Using Facial Vessel-Based Flaps-A Narrative Review.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional outcomes in early-stage tongue cancer patients following partial glossectomy: a pilot study comparing primary closure and secondary healing with biomaterials.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Surgical Management of Advanced Mandibular Osteonecrosis Utilizing a Contemporary Mandibular Reconstruction Plate in Patients Unsuitable for Free Flap Reconstruction-Preliminary Study and Case Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Risk stratification of postoperative enteral feeding intolerance using explainable machine learning in oral cancer free flap reconstruction.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Early trifurcation of the facial artery including a dedicated buccinator branch: anatomical and surgical implications.Case reports in plastic surgery & hand surgery · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReconstruction of oral cavity defects following oncologic surgery presents both functional and esthetic challenges. While microvascular free flaps remain the gold standard for large defects, local flaps based on facial vessels offer effective solutions for small-to-medium-sized reconstructions. This narrative review evaluates the clinical utility of three commonly used facial vessel-based flaps: facial artery musculomucosal, submental, and nasolabial flaps.
methodsA literature search was conducted using PubMed, targeting studies from 1981 to 2025 that described the anatomical basis, harvesting techniques, modifications, indications, advantages, disadvantages, complications, limitations, and outcomes of these flaps. A total of 73 full-text articles were included based on predefined inclusion criteria.
resultsThe FAMM flap provides versatile intraoral coverage with low donor site morbidity. The submental flap is effective in select patients, particularly those unfit for microvascular surgery, though its oncologic safety in neck-positive cases is limited. The nasolabial flap offers good esthetic and functional results with minimal external scarring. Each flap presents unique attributes regarding reach, vascularity, and complication profiles.
conclusionsFacial vessel-based flaps are viable and effective options for oral cavity reconstruction in appropriate clinical scenarios. Thorough knowledge of flap anatomy, indications, and oncologic considerations is essential for optimal 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.