English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  The reconstruction of through-and-through cheek defects involving the labial commissure following cancer ablation is a surgical challenge.    Methods  This study evaluated 35 patients with buccal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) involving the labial commissure who underwent Abbe–Estlander (A-EF), folded extended supraclavicular fasciocutaneous island (SFIF), folded pectoralis major muscle (PMMF), or folded extended vertical lower trapezius island myocutaneous (TIMF) flap reconstruction of through-and-through cheek defects involving the labial commissure following radical resection.    Results  The A-EF and SFIF groups differed significantly ( P  < 0.05) from the PMMF and TIMF groups in terms of tumor clinical stage and type of treatment. The inner PMMF (median 6.3 × 4.5) and TIMF (median 9.8 × 6.7) skin paddle dimensions were larger than those of the A-EF (median 1.8 × 2.2) and SFIF (median 5.5 × 4.3) groups ( P  < 0.05). The outer PMMF (median 6.3 × 6.6) and TIMF (median 9.8 × 13.2) dimensions were larger than those of the A-EF (median 1.8 × 3.8) and SFIF (median 5.5 × 4.6) groups ( P  < 0.05). The esthetic results, orbicularis oris function, and speech function were significantly ( P  < 0.05) better in the A-EF group than in the SFIF, PMMF, and TIMF groups. The patients were followed for 6–38 months (median 26.8, 25.0, 22.1, and 20.8 months in the A-EF, SFIF, PMMF, and TIMF groups, respectively). At the final follow-up, 4 (80.0%) patients in the A-EF, 7 (87.5%) in the SFIF, 5 (55.6%) in the PMMF, and 5 (38.4%) in the TIMF groups were alive with no disease; 1 (20.0%), 1 (22.2%), 2 (22.2%), and 4 (30.8%) patients, respectively, were alive with disease; and 2 (22.2%) patients in the PMMF and 4 (30.8%) in the TIMF group had died of local recurrence or distant metastases at between 9 and 38 months. There was a significant survival difference in the A-EF and SFIF groups compared with the PMMF and TIMF groups ( P  < 0.05).    Conclusions  The A-EF is suitable for reconstructing defects of clinical stage II disease; the SFIF for clinical stage II or III disease; the PMMF for clinical stage III or IV; and the TIMF for clinical stage rCS III or rCS IV disease.

head and face medicine

Comparison of the reconstruction of through-and-through cheek defects involving the labial commissure following tumor resection using four types of local and pedicle flaps