Limits...
Reconstructive management of the rare bilateral oral submucos fibrosis using nasolabial flap in comparison with free radial forearm flap--a randomised prospective trial.

Faisal M, Rana M, Shaheen A, Warraich R, Kokemueller H, Eckardt AM, Gellrich NC, Rana M - Orphanet J Rare Dis (2013)

Bottom Line: Surgery remains the main stay in severe cases and aims at release of fibrotic bands and resurfacing the raw areas with different options.Twenty five (25) of these were reconstructed by nasolabial flap and twenty five (25) were reconstructed by radial free forearm flap.At different intervals of their post-operative visits, they were evaluated for the interincisal distance and the difference between the two groups was assessed.RESULTS Average increase in interincisal distance was greater in patients reconstructed with radial free forearm flap compared with patient reconstructed by nasolabial flap i.e. 18.96 mm and 15.16 mm respectively with 'P' value > 0.05.CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this study, there was no significant difference in mouth opening after reconstruction with radial forearm free flap compared to nasolabial flap [corrected].

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Background: Oral sub mucous fibrosis is a rare chronic, progressive, pre malignant collagen disorder of oral mucosa in people of Asian descent characterized by trismus, blanching and stiffness of mucosa, burning sensation in mouth and hypomobility of soft palate and tongue with loss of gustatory sensation. Betel nut chewing is the most common etiological agent. Surgery remains the main stay in severe cases and aims at release of fibrotic bands and resurfacing the raw areas with different options. Reconstruction can be done by using nasolabial flap or radial free forearm flap. The purpose of this study was to compare the mouth opening after the reconstruction with either nasolabial flap or radial free forearm flap.METHODS This study was carried out on fifty (50) patients with oral sub mucous fibrosis. Twenty five (25) of these were reconstructed by nasolabial flap and twenty five (25) were reconstructed by radial free forearm flap. At different intervals of their post-operative visits, they were evaluated for the interincisal distance and the difference between the two groups was assessed.RESULTS Average increase in interincisal distance was greater in patients reconstructed with radial free forearm flap compared with patient reconstructed by nasolabial flap i.e. 18.96 mm and 15.16 mm respectively with 'P' value > 0.05.CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this study, there was no significant difference in mouth opening after reconstruction with radial forearm free flap compared to nasolabial flap [corrected].

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Demonstrates the consort flow diagram, which shows the enrollment, allocation, follow-up and data analysis.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3717039&req=5

Figure 3: Demonstrates the consort flow diagram, which shows the enrollment, allocation, follow-up and data analysis.

Mentions: The 28 patients who were managed using radial forearm free flap in group 2 were available for follow up, 2 of them had their data lost during the data analysis procedure, while 1 died of road traffic accident. So the total number of patients who were analyzed for RFFF was 25 (FigureĀ 3).


Reconstructive management of the rare bilateral oral submucos fibrosis using nasolabial flap in comparison with free radial forearm flap--a randomised prospective trial.

Faisal M, Rana M, Shaheen A, Warraich R, Kokemueller H, Eckardt AM, Gellrich NC, Rana M - Orphanet J Rare Dis (2013)

Demonstrates the consort flow diagram, which shows the enrollment, allocation, follow-up and data analysis.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3717039&req=5

Figure 3: Demonstrates the consort flow diagram, which shows the enrollment, allocation, follow-up and data analysis.
Mentions: The 28 patients who were managed using radial forearm free flap in group 2 were available for follow up, 2 of them had their data lost during the data analysis procedure, while 1 died of road traffic accident. So the total number of patients who were analyzed for RFFF was 25 (FigureĀ 3).

Bottom Line: Surgery remains the main stay in severe cases and aims at release of fibrotic bands and resurfacing the raw areas with different options.Twenty five (25) of these were reconstructed by nasolabial flap and twenty five (25) were reconstructed by radial free forearm flap.At different intervals of their post-operative visits, they were evaluated for the interincisal distance and the difference between the two groups was assessed.RESULTS Average increase in interincisal distance was greater in patients reconstructed with radial free forearm flap compared with patient reconstructed by nasolabial flap i.e. 18.96 mm and 15.16 mm respectively with 'P' value > 0.05.CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this study, there was no significant difference in mouth opening after reconstruction with radial forearm free flap compared to nasolabial flap [corrected].

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Background: Oral sub mucous fibrosis is a rare chronic, progressive, pre malignant collagen disorder of oral mucosa in people of Asian descent characterized by trismus, blanching and stiffness of mucosa, burning sensation in mouth and hypomobility of soft palate and tongue with loss of gustatory sensation. Betel nut chewing is the most common etiological agent. Surgery remains the main stay in severe cases and aims at release of fibrotic bands and resurfacing the raw areas with different options. Reconstruction can be done by using nasolabial flap or radial free forearm flap. The purpose of this study was to compare the mouth opening after the reconstruction with either nasolabial flap or radial free forearm flap.METHODS This study was carried out on fifty (50) patients with oral sub mucous fibrosis. Twenty five (25) of these were reconstructed by nasolabial flap and twenty five (25) were reconstructed by radial free forearm flap. At different intervals of their post-operative visits, they were evaluated for the interincisal distance and the difference between the two groups was assessed.RESULTS Average increase in interincisal distance was greater in patients reconstructed with radial free forearm flap compared with patient reconstructed by nasolabial flap i.e. 18.96 mm and 15.16 mm respectively with 'P' value > 0.05.CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this study, there was no significant difference in mouth opening after reconstruction with radial forearm free flap compared to nasolabial flap [corrected].

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus