The buccal fat pad flap for the reconstruction of intraoral buccal defects following buccal cancer surgery. Issue 1 (January 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Öztürk, Kerem; Turhal, Göksel; Şahin, Fetih Furkan
• Is Part Of: Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, medicine, and pathology. Volume 34:Issue 1(2022)
• Page Start: 19
• Page End: 23
• Publication Date: 2022-01
• Subjects: Buccal fat pad -- Buccal fat pad flap -- Buccal carcinoma -- Oral defect reconstruction; Mouth -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Oral medicine -- Periodicals; Mouth -- Diseases -- Pathogenesis -- Periodicals; Surgery, Oral -- Periodicals; Oral Medicine -- Periodicals; Pathology, Oral -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery; Maxilla -- Surgery; Mouth -- Diseases -- Pathogenesis; Mouth -- Surgery; Oral medicine; Electronic journals -- Sciences; Electronic journals -- Medicine; Periodicals; 617.522059
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ajoms.2021.05.005
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2212-5566

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: There are many reconstruction techniques for the repair of the intraoral buccal defects following oncological resections. The pedicled buccal fat pad (BFP) flap can be used for reconstruction of medium-sized buccal defects. The purpose of this study was to investigate the outcomes of the reconstruction with BFP flap following the resection of buccal tumors and risk factors on BFP flap success. Methods: This study was designed as a retrospective case series research. Ten patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the buccal mucosa underwent BFP flap reconstruction following tumor resection. The dimensions of the primary tumor and post-resection defect were calculated. The intraoral operation field was evaluated on the postoperative 7th day and in the postoperative 1 st and 6th months. Postoperative flap status, disease recurrence, risk factors for flap success were assessed. Results: The mean greatest dimension of the post-resection buccal defect was 41.9 ± 10.3 mm. A partial dehiscence was observed in three patients in the postoperative 7th day. The 6th month-examination revealed no flap complications. The mean greatest dimension of post-resection buccal defect in uncomplicated patients was 42.7 ± 11.4 mm and in patients with partial dehiscence was 40 ± 8.6 mm (p = 0.727). There was no significant difference between uncomplicated patients and patients with partial dehiscence according to body mass index (normal vs overweight, p = 0.667). Conclusion: The BFP flap is a reliable reconstruction method in medium sized buccal defects following oncological resection. It has low complication and donor site morbidity rates and also good anatomical and oncological outcomes.