Sourabh Shankar Chakraborty1, Akhil Dhanesh Goel2, Ranjit Kumar Sahu3, Manojit Midya4, Sudeshna Acharya5, Neha Shakrawal6. 1. Department of Burns and Plastic Surgery, South Eastern Railway Central Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700043, India. 2. Community Medicine and Family Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342005, India. 3. Department of Burns and Plastic Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, 751019, India. 4. Department of Burns and Plastic Surgery, Government Medical College, Kota, Rajasthan, 324005, India. 5. Trauma and Emergency, Goodwill Nursing Home, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700018, India. drsudeshnaacharyachakraborty@gmail.com. 6. Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, 110029, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Different studies performed on nasal subunit reconstruction by either the nasolabial flap or the paramedian forehead flap have reported contradictory outcomes and complications, claiming one flap or the other as superior. This inconsistency has led to a gap in existing literature regarding the preferable flap for nasal reconstruction. Our aim was to statistically evaluate and compare these two flaps for nasal reconstruction, in terms of subunit preference, complications, and outcomes, using data from previous studies. METHODS: This systematic review is reported using PRISMA protocol and was registered with the International prospective register of systematic reviews. The literature search was done using "paramedian forehead flap", "nasolabial flap", "melolabial flap", "nasal reconstruction". Data regarding demography of study and population, subunit reconstructed, complications, and aesthetic outcomes were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed using MetaXL and summary of findings using GRADEpro GDT. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were included, and data from 2036 followed-up patients were extracted for the review. Meta-analysis was done on data from nine studies. Difference in alar reconstruction by forehead versus nasolabial flap is statistically significant [pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.3; 95% CI 0.01, 0.92; p = 0.72; I2 = 0%, n = 6 studies], while for dorsum and columella reconstruction the difference is not statistically significant. Risk of alar notching is marginally more in forehead flap, however difference in incidence of partial/complete flap necrosis, alar notching and hematoma/bleeding among the flaps is not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Alar reconstruction is preferred by nasolabial flap. Complications are similar in both groups. Comparison of aesthetic outcome needs further exploration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
BACKGROUND: Different studies performed on nasal subunit reconstruction by either the nasolabial flap or the paramedian forehead flap have reported contradictory outcomes and complications, claiming one flap or the other as superior. This inconsistency has led to a gap in existing literature regarding the preferable flap for nasal reconstruction. Our aim was to statistically evaluate and compare these two flaps for nasal reconstruction, in terms of subunit preference, complications, and outcomes, using data from previous studies. METHODS: This systematic review is reported using PRISMA protocol and was registered with the International prospective register of systematic reviews. The literature search was done using "paramedian forehead flap", "nasolabial flap", "melolabial flap", "nasal reconstruction". Data regarding demography of study and population, subunit reconstructed, complications, and aesthetic outcomes were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed using MetaXL and summary of findings using GRADEpro GDT. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were included, and data from 2036 followed-up patients were extracted for the review. Meta-analysis was done on data from nine studies. Difference in alar reconstruction by forehead versus nasolabial flap is statistically significant [pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.3; 95% CI 0.01, 0.92; p = 0.72; I2 = 0%, n = 6 studies], while for dorsum and columella reconstruction the difference is not statistically significant. Risk of alar notching is marginally more in forehead flap, however difference in incidence of partial/complete flap necrosis, alar notching and hematoma/bleeding among the flaps is not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Alar reconstruction is preferred by nasolabial flap. Complications are similar in both groups. Comparison of aesthetic outcome needs further exploration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .