Cargando…

Comparison of Different Reconstruction Flap for Maxillofacial Region: An Original Research

INTRODUCTION: Large chunks of the tissue are sacrificed during the surgical procedures for the treatment if oral cancers. Our goal was to assess the viability of “Buccal reconstruction using the anterolateral thigh (ALT) flaps, platysma myocutaneous (PM), and radial forearm free (RFF)”. MATERIAL AND...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chakraborty, Pallavi Khan, Patel, Smit, Mulla, Misbah Farheen, Kulkarni, Manisha Mangesh, Sheikh, Rummaan Ahmed, Shukla, Anuj Kishor
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10466590/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37654262
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_475_22
_version_ 1785098919022166016
author Chakraborty, Pallavi Khan
Patel, Smit
Mulla, Misbah Farheen
Kulkarni, Manisha Mangesh
Sheikh, Rummaan Ahmed
Shukla, Anuj Kishor
author_facet Chakraborty, Pallavi Khan
Patel, Smit
Mulla, Misbah Farheen
Kulkarni, Manisha Mangesh
Sheikh, Rummaan Ahmed
Shukla, Anuj Kishor
author_sort Chakraborty, Pallavi Khan
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Large chunks of the tissue are sacrificed during the surgical procedures for the treatment if oral cancers. Our goal was to assess the viability of “Buccal reconstruction using the anterolateral thigh (ALT) flaps, platysma myocutaneous (PM), and radial forearm free (RFF)”. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty subjects were included in this investigation, and they were divided into 3 groups. The follow-up as accompanied for six months. Comparisons were made for the time for the operations, reduction in the width of the mouth opening and the survival rates of the flaps. The data that was collected for the above two parameters and compared for the significance using the ANOVA, keeping P < 0.05 as significant. RESULTS: In the subjects with the PM, the width of the mouth opening reduced comparatively greater than that of the subjects who received other two flaps. The reduction in the mouth opening in the PM was significantly greater compared to that of the ALT and RFF. Survival was greater for the groups ALT and RFF compared to PM. Time of the surgery was the greatest for the ALT and least for the PF. CONCLUSION: The observations point to the fact that the PF requires more time than that of the other two flaps. The survival was however better for the ALT and RFF. Further research is suggested for suggesting an appropriative flap design.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10466590
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104665902023-08-31 Comparison of Different Reconstruction Flap for Maxillofacial Region: An Original Research Chakraborty, Pallavi Khan Patel, Smit Mulla, Misbah Farheen Kulkarni, Manisha Mangesh Sheikh, Rummaan Ahmed Shukla, Anuj Kishor J Pharm Bioallied Sci Original Article INTRODUCTION: Large chunks of the tissue are sacrificed during the surgical procedures for the treatment if oral cancers. Our goal was to assess the viability of “Buccal reconstruction using the anterolateral thigh (ALT) flaps, platysma myocutaneous (PM), and radial forearm free (RFF)”. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty subjects were included in this investigation, and they were divided into 3 groups. The follow-up as accompanied for six months. Comparisons were made for the time for the operations, reduction in the width of the mouth opening and the survival rates of the flaps. The data that was collected for the above two parameters and compared for the significance using the ANOVA, keeping P < 0.05 as significant. RESULTS: In the subjects with the PM, the width of the mouth opening reduced comparatively greater than that of the subjects who received other two flaps. The reduction in the mouth opening in the PM was significantly greater compared to that of the ALT and RFF. Survival was greater for the groups ALT and RFF compared to PM. Time of the surgery was the greatest for the ALT and least for the PF. CONCLUSION: The observations point to the fact that the PF requires more time than that of the other two flaps. The survival was however better for the ALT and RFF. Further research is suggested for suggesting an appropriative flap design. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2023-07 2023-07-05 /pmc/articles/PMC10466590/ /pubmed/37654262 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_475_22 Text en Copyright: © 2023 Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Chakraborty, Pallavi Khan
Patel, Smit
Mulla, Misbah Farheen
Kulkarni, Manisha Mangesh
Sheikh, Rummaan Ahmed
Shukla, Anuj Kishor
Comparison of Different Reconstruction Flap for Maxillofacial Region: An Original Research
title Comparison of Different Reconstruction Flap for Maxillofacial Region: An Original Research
title_full Comparison of Different Reconstruction Flap for Maxillofacial Region: An Original Research
title_fullStr Comparison of Different Reconstruction Flap for Maxillofacial Region: An Original Research
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Different Reconstruction Flap for Maxillofacial Region: An Original Research
title_short Comparison of Different Reconstruction Flap for Maxillofacial Region: An Original Research
title_sort comparison of different reconstruction flap for maxillofacial region: an original research
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10466590/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37654262
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_475_22
work_keys_str_mv AT chakrabortypallavikhan comparisonofdifferentreconstructionflapformaxillofacialregionanoriginalresearch
AT patelsmit comparisonofdifferentreconstructionflapformaxillofacialregionanoriginalresearch
AT mullamisbahfarheen comparisonofdifferentreconstructionflapformaxillofacialregionanoriginalresearch
AT kulkarnimanishamangesh comparisonofdifferentreconstructionflapformaxillofacialregionanoriginalresearch
AT sheikhrummaanahmed comparisonofdifferentreconstructionflapformaxillofacialregionanoriginalresearch
AT shuklaanujkishor comparisonofdifferentreconstructionflapformaxillofacialregionanoriginalresearch