Please cite this article in press as: Maria L, et al. Nasolabial pedicled compared with island flaps for intraoral reconstruction of oncological defects: complications, recovery of sensitivity, and assessment of quality of life. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.04.017 ARTICLE IN PRESS YBJOM-4866; No. of Pages 5 British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Nasolabial pedicled compared with island flaps for intraoral reconstruction of oncological defects: complications, recovery of sensitivity, and assessment of quality of life Lazaridou Maria a,* , Vaxtsevanos Konstantinos a , Dimitrakopoulos Ioannis a , Lazaridis Nikolaos a , Antoniades Konstantinos a a Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Accepted 14 April 2016 Abstract Our aim was to compare pedicled and island nasolabial flaps used for reconstruction of oral defects in terms of postoperative complications, recovery of sensitivity, and quality of life. We organised a retrospective cohort study of 49 patients who had had intraoral reconstruction with nasolabial pedicled (n- = 13) and island (n = 36) flaps. Twenty- two patients filled in a validated quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaire and we did sensitivity tests (sharp discrimination with the aid of a Semmes-Weinstein TM aesthesiometer). Descriptive and bivariate statistics were computed and probabilities of 0.05 were accepted as significant. There were 11 flap-related complications (22%), and the flap was totally necrotic in three patients (6%), all of whom had island flaps. There was a significant association between flap-related complications and the use of reconstruction plate p = 0.001, 95% CI 2.36 to 11.37) and advanced stage (T3 and T4 p = 0.01, 95% CI 1.45 to 5.26). Skin sensitivity recovered in both island and pedicled flaps. Patients treated with island flaps had significantly more problems with prosthetic rehabilitation than those treated with pedicled flaps. The relatively low morbidity and adequate functional and aesthetic results make the pedicled nasolabial flap a viable technique. De- epithelialisation of the pedicle in island flaps permits coverage of defects with unilateral flaps in a one-stage reconstruction. However, the pedicle may be excessively stretched, leading to ischaemic complications. © 2016 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Pedicled nasolabial flap; Islanded nasolabial flap; Intraoral reconstruction; Quality of life; Flap-related complications Introduction The nasolabial flap is a dermocutaneous flap with a random vascular supply, which relies on a rich subcu- taneous and dermal vascular system that is supplied by * Corresponding author. Iposminagou Ioannou Hatzoudi 9, 567 27, Neapoli, Thessaloniki, Greece. Tel.: +00302310619416. E-mail addresses: lazaridoudm@yahoo.gr (L. Maria), vaxtseva@dent.auth.gr (V. Konstantinos), idim@dent.auth.gr (D. Ioannis), lazarnik@dent.auth.gr (L. Nikolaos), antoniad@dent.auth.gr (A. Konstantinos). the angular, the infraorbital, the transverse facial, and the infratrochlear artery. This network is also augmented by branches of the contralateral superior and inferior labial arteries. 1–3 The flap has been used to cover intraoral defects after resection of oral cancer, either as a pedicled flap in a two-stage reconstruction or as an island flap in a one-stage reconstruc- tion. We present here 49 oral reconstructions using pedicled and island flaps in an effort to identify possible risk factors for flap-related complications and to compare pedicled and island flaps in terms of complications, recovery of sensitivity, and aesthetic and functional outcome. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2016.04.017 0266-4356/© 2016 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.