ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Comparative Study of Frontal and Nasolabial Flaps for Total Alar Subunit Reconstruction.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Total reconstruction of the alar nasal subunit, often following traumatic or oncological amputation, presents a significant reconstructive challenge. This study compares the nasolabial flap (NLF) and the paramedian forehead flap (PFF) for their aesthetic and functional outcomes in this specific context. Methods: A prospective, monocentric study included 28 patients who underwent total alar subunit reconstruction between 2017 and 2024. Patients were allocated to 2 groups based on the reconstructive technique: folded PFF or NLF. Postoperative assessment included patient satisfaction surveys and the Nasal Aesthetic and Functional Evaluation Questionnaire score to evaluate functional and aesthetic outcomes. Results: Reconstruction with the PFF provided superior aesthetic outcomes compared with the NLF, with a mean Nasal Aesthetic and Functional Evaluation Questionnaire aesthetic score of 30 out of 35 versus 21.6 out of 35 ( Conclusions: For total alar subunit reconstruction, the PFF offers superior aesthetic results at the cost of greater procedural complexity compared with the NLF. This study underscores the necessity of an individualized, patient-centered approach, balancing aesthetic goals against the surgical burden through shared decision-making.
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.