Comparative Evaluation of Nasolabial Flap, Buccal Fat Pad and Platysma Myocutaneous Flap for Reconstruction of Oral Sub Mucous Fibrosis Defects

Moderately advanced (stage III) and advanced (stage IV a & b) OSMF requires surgical intervention for management A number of options are available for reconstruction of post OSMF oral cavity defects. In our study we retrospectively compared buccal fat pad, nasolabial flap and platysma flap for reconstruction of the buccal mucosal defects. Patient records were obtained from the medical records section of the Institute and divided into three groups; group A (buccal fat pad), group B (nasolabial group) and group C (platysma flap). Maximal mouth opening and intercommisural distance were the primary outcomes. Kruskal Wallis test was used to test the mean difference between three groups. Mann–Whitney test was used for intergroup comparisons. Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to evaluate the mean difference in outcomes at each follow up interval. A p value of < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant at 95% confidence interval. After 1 year follow up patients in platysma group had significantly better mouth opening (39.84 ± 1.65 mm) compared to both buccal fat pad (36.69 ± 3.41 mm) and nasolabial groups (37.94 ± 0.43 mm). Inter commisural distance was significantly better in patients reconstructed with platysma flap (59.21 ± 0.99 mm) compared to both buccal fat pad (54.11 ± 1 mm) and nasolabial flap (56.84 ± 1.48 mm). Platysma flap lead to significantly better maximal mouth opening compared to both nasolabial and buccal fat pad. Both buccal fat pad and nasolabial lead to comparable mouth opening. Inter commissural distance is maximum with platysma flap followed by nasolabial flap and buccal fat pad.