Transposition nasolabial flap: A versatile flap for sensate reconstruction of lip defects

Abstract

Introduction Lip reconstruction aims at maintaining the function and aesthetics of the facial subunits. Sensation in the reconstructed lip helps in bolus formation, tactile discrimination, and thermal sensation. In this study, we aim to describe random pattern nasolabial flap for lip reconstruction using various functional parameters. Methodology This is a retrospective study of 22 patients with carcinoma lip who underwent surgical resection and reconstruction with sensate nasolabial flap. Several clinicopathological parameters were studied. Outcome parameters like oral competence, tactile sensation, thermal sensitivity of reconstructed lip and speech outcomes were evaluated. Result A functional outcome with 2–4 mm of two‐point discrimination was obtained in 19 patients. All patients had intelligible speech. A mean sulcus depth of 19.59 mm was achieved. One patient had partial flap loss owing to wound infection. Conclusion Random pattern senate nasolabial flap offers a good functional outcome by maintaining the tactile and thermal sensitivity.

Lower lip reconstruction using McGregor fan technique with or without depressor anguli oris chimeric flap. Is there a difference in function and aesthetic outcomes?

“…Furthermore, none of our patients reported drooling, which may be due to sufficient tissue supply and adequate creation of adequate labial sulcus. This finding was inconstant with the previous study 19 …”

“…In our series, 90% of patients had normal speech. Two patients in the control group showed a moderate change in speech (grade II); however, it was understandable, which is in line with a previous study 19 …”

“…In our study, no patients demonstrated differences to a light touch from baseline sensation at 1 year. In comparison, using the nasolabial flap, the flap was insensate in 3 out of 22 patients from the immediate postoperative period 19 …”

“…In the present study, we evaluated drooling; we can reasonably presume that the oral competence in the study group was much better than that of the control group (Figure 3). A study by Mishra et al 19 found that using a nasolabial flap for lip repair improved oral competence in 86% of patients but caused drooling in 13.6%. The main disadvantage of the nasolabial flap is that it cannot restore circumoral sphincter function 19 .…”

“…A study by Mishra et al 19 found that using a nasolabial flap for lip repair improved oral competence in 86% of patients but caused drooling in 13.6%. The main disadvantage of the nasolabial flap is that it cannot restore circumoral sphincter function 19 . Furthermore, none of our patients reported drooling, which may be due to sufficient tissue supply and adequate creation of adequate labial sulcus.…”