ArticleEplasty2026
Design of Buccinator Flaps for Oronasal Fistula Repair: A Technical Review and Case Series.
Article in Eplasty, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Oronasal fistula (ONF) repair remains a significant challenge in patients with cleft lip and palate, particularly when local palatal tissue is insufficient. Regional flaps, including the buccal myomucosal flap (BMMF) and the facial artery musculomucosal (FAMM) flap, offer reliable reconstructive options. This study reviews the surgical anatomy, design, and clinical outcomes of these buccinator-based flaps in ONF repair. Methods: This retrospective case series included 13 patients who underwent ONF repair using a BMMF or a FAMM flap between 2017 and 2024. Patient demographics, fistula characteristics, surgical details, postoperative care, and outcomes were collected and analyzed. Results: Six patients underwent BMMF reconstruction, while 7 received FAMM flaps. Successful fistula closure was achieved in 66.7% of patients in the BMMF group, with flap dehiscence occurring in 2 cases, both associated with digital manipulation. The FAMM flap cohort had a 100% fistula closure rate but exhibited a high incidence (86%) of postoperative scar contracture, with 4 patients requiring contracture release. Conclusions: Based on this experience, the authors propose an algorithm for flap selection in ONF repair. Posteriorly based BMMFs are well suited for fistulas at the junction of the hard and soft palate (Type III) and the posterior third of the hard palate (Type IV). Superiorly based FAMM flaps are preferred for anterior ONFs, particularly those extending into the alveolus. The central hard palate remains a reconstructive challenge, with FAMM flaps offering better reach, though they require staged inset and debulking. Both BMMF and FAMM flaps provide vascularized tissue for ONF closure with minimal donor site morbidity. Strategic flap selection based on fistula location optimizes outcomes while mitigating complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41837171PMC12980017What 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.