ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Functional Outcomes of Tongue Reconstruction After Cancer Extirpation in Different Flaps: Pedicled Versus Free Flaps: A Systematic Review.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2025. 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.
- The nürnberg approach: a decision model for local vs. microvascular reconstruction in oral cancer surgery.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Mechanistic insights into 18β-glycyrrhetinic acid-induced apoptosis in SCC-9 cells revealed by TMT proteomics and network pharmacology.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Pectoralis major myocutaneous versus pectoralis major myofascial flap for type III and type IV tongue defects reconstruction in patients operated for squamous cell carcinoma: A protocol.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Surgical Management of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma With Reconstruction of the Oral Defect Using a Lingual Island Flap: Case Report.Case reports in dentistry · 2026Article
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: Tongue reconstruction poses significant challenges, involving either pedicle or free flaps, with variations arising from the remnant native tongue tissue or complete neotongue formation. Distinct differences exist between oral tongue and posterior-tongue reconstruction, and the impact of flap nature on functional outcomes remains inconclusive. This study aimed to identify the best flap options for tongue resections based on functional outcomes, help surgeons predict posttreatment quality of life, and explore standardized methods for evaluating swallowing, tongue mobility, speech, and quality of life. Methods: A systematic search of Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science identified studies on functional outcomes after tongue reconstruction with flaps. From 782 articles, 42 were included in the review. Four independent researchers assessed bias risk using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool. Results: The submental flap was the most common pedicle flap, whereas free flaps such as the anterolateral thigh and radial forearm were frequently used. Functional outcomes were influenced by resection extent, reconstruction type, and postoperative radiotherapy. Neo-tongue reconstruction differed functionally from oral tongue reconstruction. Sensory or motor-innervated flaps showed better swallowing outcomes, but speech results were similar between pedicle and free flaps. Conclusions: The study's findings are limited by inconsistent data, retrospective designs, and lack of standardized methods, necessitating cautious interpretation. Free flaps consistently offer better functional outcomes for tongue reconstruction, improving over time with rehabilitation. Free flaps tailored to defect size are preferred over pedicle flaps for superior results, regardless of reconstruction site.
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.