A BSTRACT Introduction: Oral cavity reconstruction is a complex challenge that requires surgical expertise and careful planning. The choice of reconstruction method can significantly impact functional outcomes and patient quality of life. While certain early tongue lesions can be primarily closed, and some early buccal squamous cell carcinomas can be rebuilt using skin grafts, early oral cavity lesions have traditionally been restored with local flaps, such as nasolabial and submental flaps. The aesthetic limitations of these local flaps were later addressed by the introduction of free flaps, such as radial forearm flaps, for early tongue and buccal lesions. However, in a developing country like India, there are concerns about the cost of free flap reconstruction, the time required for harvesting and repairing the free flaps, and the postoperative monitoring. In these circumstances, two local flap options, the submental and nasolabial flaps, remain useful. Materials and Methods: The current study aims to provide a comparative study between submental and nasolabial flaps in early oral cavity reconstruction. This observational study was conducted at a tertiary care center between March 2022 and March 2024. The researcher obtained prior approval from the ethical committee. The study evaluated 50 cases each of nasolabial and submental flaps. Various outcome measures were assessed, including surgical outcomes, functional analysis, cosmetic results, postoperative complications, and patient satisfaction levels. The research focused on the use of nasolabial and submental flaps for oral cavity reconstruction. The findings suggest that while the submental flap had fewer postoperative complications, the nasolabial flap had a more positive impact on patient recovery. The data was analyzed using International usiness machines Statistical Package for Social Sciences (IBM SPSS) software. Results: The study population comprised both male and female patients, with 38% and 34% being primary cases in their respective categories, and 62% and 66% being recurrent cases, as indicated by the data. Additionally, the submental flap group exhibited a higher prevalence of hypertension, with 48% of participants experiencing this complication, while the Nasolabial group had a 36% incidence of diabetes. Furthermore, 40% of the Nasolabial group achieved complete flap coverage, whereas 30% of the submental flap group experienced no flap loss complications. The statistical analysis revealed a strong correlation, as the P < 0.05 for all the complexities studied. Additionally, the Nasolabial and submental flap cases had a recurrence rate of 44% and 56%, respectively, while 58% of the cases were non-recurrent. In the non-recurrent group, comorbidities included 36% diabetes and 26% recurrent diabetes, with hypertension accounting for 24% of the cases in both groups. Additionally, the post-recipient rate was 16% for recurrent patients and 30% for non-recurrent patients. Conclusion: The nasolabial and submental flaps are distinct flaps. While the nasolabial flap provides better ease of transfer when facial blood supply is questionable but has aesthetic drawbacks, it comes in various forms such as islanded, superiorly and inferiorly based flaps. In contrast, our study suggests that the submental flap offers more stable vascularity and better cosmetic outcomes compared to the nasolabial flap.
Kshirsagar et al. (Fri,) studied this question.