These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Sensory recovery of non-innervated free flaps and nasolabial island flaps used for tongue reconstruction of oncological defects.
    Author: Zhu L, Zhang J, Song X, Hou W, Wu S, Chen W, Svensson P, Wang K.
    Journal: J Oral Rehabil; 2017 Oct; 44(10):736-748. PubMed ID: 28370156.
    Abstract:
    The aims of this study were to assess sensory recovery and impact on life quality after tongue reconstruction of oncological defects using different flap types. Thirty-two patients who underwent tongue reconstruction for oncological defects 9·3 months after surgery with non-innervated radial forearm free flaps (RFFFs) (N = 16), non-innervated anterolateral thigh free flaps (ALTFFs) (N = 8) and nasolabial island flaps (NLIFs) (N = 8), and 20 age- and gender-matched healthy controls participated in the study. The modalities assessed were cold detection threshold, warm detection threshold (WDT), cold pain threshold, heat pain threshold (HPT), mechanical detection threshold (MDT), mechanical pain threshold (MPT) and the Chinese version of Oral Health Impact Profile-49. ALTFFs was significantly more sensitive than RFFFs (P = 0·005) and NLIFs (P = 0·014) for WDT, and showed a better sensory recovery than RFFFs for HPT (P = 0·011). ALTFFs and NLIFs showed significantly better sensory recovery than RFFFs for MDT (P < 0·005). NLIFs showed the best sensory recovery for MPT, followed by ALTFFs and lastly RFFFs (P = 0·004). NLIFs also showed the least impact on quality of life measures related to psychological discomfort compared to RFFFs and ALTFFs (P < 0·019). All modalities of sensory recovery in RFFFs did not depend on gender and post-operative radiotherapy (P > 0·05). Different flaps for tongue reconstruction of oncological defects appear to have different patterns of sensory recovery and impact on quality of life measures. A longer follow-up period and larger number of participants will be needed in future studies.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]