ArticleJPRAS open2026
The versatile menu of the nasolabial flap in nasal reconstruction: A defect-based algorithm.
Article in JPRAS 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives: The nasolabial flap is a reliable option in nasal subunit reconstruction, but its versatility often remains underappreciated. This study aims to highlight a plethora of different application options of the nasolabial flap for nasal defects, while proposing a reconstructive, defect-based algorithm. Patients and methods: In a retrospective case series, patients with nasal subunit defects reconstructed using a nasolabial flap between 2014 - 2024 by a single plastic and reconstructive surgeon were included. Data analysis included patient demographics, defect characteristics, nasolabial flap characteristics, perioperative data, and postoperative outcome. Different nasolabial flap applications were categorized into eight variants according to defect analysis by nasal subunit Results: Twenty-three patients (n = 23) were included and classified into the subgroups according to the nasolabial flap applied. In 91.3%, nasal defects were caused by prior skin cancer resection or complications thereof. Defect size ranged from partial (4.3%) and single-subunit defects (78.3%) to multi-subunit defects (17.4%) with varying defect depth between partial- and full-thickness defect. Based on thorough defect analyses, a defect-based treatment algorithm was derived. Variants of the nasolabial flap included transposition and island flap designs, one- vs. two-staged flaps, the nasolabial flap as an enfolding flap or in combination with a turn-over flap with or without concha cartilage grafting. No major complications or flap losses occurred. Postoperative outcome rating showed a high patient satisfaction rate with only one patient demanding a corrective surgery. Conclusions: The nasolabial flap is versatile and simple, making it highly suitable for facial reconstruction in everyday clinic. Use of the proposed defect-based treatment algorithm enables precise decision making depending on the defect to reconstruct.
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.