%0 Journal Article
%T Oral Reconstruction with Locoregional Flaps after Cancer Ablation: A Systematic Review of the Literature.
%A Accorona R
%A Di Furia D
%A Cremasco A
%A Gazzini L
%A Mevio N
%A Pilolli F
%A Achena A
%A Iftikhar H
%A Awny S
%A Ormellese GL
%A Dragonetti AG
%A De Virgilio A
%J J Clin Med
%V 13
%N 14
%D 2024 Jul 17
%M 39064220
%F 4.964
%R 10.3390/jcm13144181
%X Introduction: The planning of oral reconstruction after tumor resection is a pivotal point for head and neck surgeons. It is mandatory to consider two aspects: the size of the surgical defect and the complexity of the oral cavity as an anatomical region. We offer a review of the literature that focuses on four types of locoregional flaps that can be profitably used for such reconstruction: infrahyoid (IF), nasolabial (NF), platysma (PF), and submental (SF). Methods: The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This systematic review was carried out according to the PICOS acronym through a comprehensive electronic search on PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases. For each selected article, we extrapolated eight main parameters, of which all mean values were compared through an ANOVA test. The dimensions of the oral defects were referred to as "small" (<7 cm2), "medium" (7-50 cm2), or "large" (>50 cm2). Results: A total of 139 articles were selected with a total of 5898 patients. The mean ages for each type of flap were not statistically significant (p = 0.30, p > 0.05). Seven sublocations of oral defects were reported: The most common was the tongue (2003 [34.0%] patients), followed by the floor of the mouth (1786 [30.4%]), buccal mucosa (981 [16.6%]), cheek (422 [7.2%]), hard palate (302 [5.1%]), alveolar ridge (217 [3.7%]), and retromolar trigone (187 [3.2%]). The defects were mainly medium-sized (4507 [76.4%] patients), and fewer were small-sized (1056 [17.9%]) or large-sized (335 [5.7%]). Complications were noted, the most frequent of which was flap necrosis, seen in 0.57% of cases. The functional and esthetical results were mainly positive. Conclusions: Locoregional flaps represent a good alternative in medium-sized defects as well as a fairly good alternative in small- and large-sized defects when other options are ruled out.