BACKGROUND: Operation on tumors situated in the posterior part of the oral cavity is a challenging aspect of head and neck surgery. Both the approach and the postablative reconstruction of the remaining defect require special procedures. An arsenal of reconstructive methods are available depending on the size and complexity of the defect. The goal should be to employ the simplest surgical reconstructive method, resulting in the best functional result and allowing for later complex oncotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To study the outcomes of patients treated using buccal mucosal transposition flaps for reconstruction of posterior oral cavity and oropharyngeal border defects. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 6 patients with defects of the posterior oral cavity and mesopharynx were treated with buccal mucosal transposition flaps. The patients were followed for up to 24 months. RESULTS: Defects ranging from 12 to 27 cm 2 were reconstructed with the buccal mucosal transposition flap. One patient developed an orocutaneous fistula and 1 had some trismus requiring a Z-plasty scar reorientation. One patient suffered from nasal regurgitation. Five of the 6 patients lived past 24 months, the time of follow-up of this study. CONCLUSIONS: The buccal mucosal transposition flap, with its random pattern of circulation, used alone proved to be a safe method to reconstruct soft tissue defects or line exposed hard tissues located in the posterior oral cavity and oropharynx.
BACKGROUND: Operation on tumors situated in the posterior part of the oral cavity is a challenging aspect of head and neck surgery. Both the approach and the postablative reconstruction of the remaining defect require special procedures. An arsenal of reconstructive methods are available depending on the size and complexity of the defect. The goal should be to employ the simplest surgical reconstructive method, resulting in the best functional result and allowing for later complex oncotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To study the outcomes of patients treated using buccal mucosal transposition flaps for reconstruction of posterior oral cavity and oropharyngeal border defects. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 6 patients with defects of the posterior oral cavity and mesopharynx were treated with buccal mucosal transposition flaps. The patients were followed for up to 24 months. RESULTS: Defects ranging from 12 to 27 cm 2 were reconstructed with the buccal mucosal transposition flap. One patient developed an orocutaneous fistula and 1 had some trismus requiring a Z-plasty scar reorientation. One patient suffered from nasal regurgitation. Five of the 6 patients lived past 24 months, the time of follow-up of this study. CONCLUSIONS: The buccal mucosal transposition flap, with its random pattern of circulation, used alone proved to be a safe method to reconstruct soft tissue defects or line exposed hard tissues located in the posterior oral cavity and oropharynx.