ArticleCureus2026
Outcomes of Using Nasolabial Flap for Orofacial Reconstruction: A Retrospective Descriptive Case Series.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose This retrospective descriptive study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes, complication rates, and flap survival of the nasolabial flap used for reconstruction of various orofacial soft-tissue defects, with particular attention to the flap design (tunneled island flap vs pedicled flap) and the impact of facial artery ligation. Patients and methods A total of 20 cases at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, National Defense Medical College Hospital, between 2017 and 2025, in which the nasolabial flap was used to reconstruct soft-tissue defects, resulting from oral cancer, jaw osteonecrosis, soft-tissue defects due to trauma, and oronasal fistula, were retrospectively reviewed after obtaining ethical approval from the ethics committee. Results A total of 17 cases involved intraoral reconstruction using a tunneled island flap. Meanwhile, the pedicled flap was used in three cases for lip reconstruction. In all cases, the flap survived, and satisfactory functional and esthetic outcomes were achieved. In three cases, flap resection was required after reconstruction, and only one (5%) patient developed partial flap dehiscence. Two (10%) patients exhibited distal flap necrosis, both of which involved random-pattern and tunneled island flaps in patients who had their facial artery ligated, but the flap's viability was ultimately good. All cases of orofacial reconstruction using the nasolabial flap during the study period were included. Conclusions Based on our study, the nasolabial flap is a reliable reconstructive method for orofacial defects. However, we believe that cautious attention to blood supply is needed in cases involving tunneled island flaps where the facial artery is ligated.
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.