Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Feb;47(1):313-329.
doi: 10.1007/s00266-022-03060-w. Epub 2022 Sep 14.

Effectiveness of Nasolabial Flap Versus Paramedian Forehead Flap for Nasal Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Sourabh Shankar Chakraborty  1 , Akhil Dhanesh Goel  2 , Ranjit Kumar Sahu  3 , Manojit Midya  4 , Sudeshna Acharya  5 , Neha Shakrawal  6
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Effectiveness of Nasolabial Flap Versus Paramedian Forehead Flap for Nasal Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Sourabh Shankar Chakraborty et al. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2023 Feb.

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 .

Keywords: Complication; Melolabial flap; Nasal reconstruction; Nasolabial flap; Paramedian forehead flap; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Arden RL, Nawroz-Danish M, Yoo GH, Meleca RJ, Burgio DL (1999) Nasal alar reconstruction: a critical analysis using melolabial island and paramedian forehead flaps. Laryngoscope 109(3):376–382 - PubMed
    1. Paddack AC, Frank RW, Spencer HJ, Key JM, Vural E (2012) Outcomes of paramedian forehead and nasolabial interpolation flaps in nasal reconstruction. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 138(4):367–371 - PubMed
    1. Genova R, Gardner PA, Oliver LN, Chaiyasate K (2019) Outcome study after nasal alar/peri-alar subunit reconstruction: comparing paramedian forehead flap to nasolabial flap. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 7(5):e2209 - PubMed - PMC
    1. Driscoll BP, Baker SR (2001) Reconstruction of nasal alar defects. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 3(2):91–99. Erratum in: Arch Facial Plast Surg 2001 Oct–Dec; 3(4). Drisco BP [corrected to Driscoll BP]
    1. Sherris DA, Fuerstenberg J, Danahey D, Hilger PA (2002) Reconstruction of the nasal columella. Arch Fac Plast Surg 4(1):42–46

LinkOut - more resources