Clinical Profile and Quality of Life Assessment of Oral Cancer Patients Following Nasolabial Flap Reconstruction Surgery
To evaluate the quality of life (QOL) of oral cancer patients who had undergone surgical reconstruction with nasolabial flap. A cross-sectional study was conducted over a period of 1 year at a tertiary care hospital and 128 subjects were included. The subjective assessment of quality of life using The University of Washington QOL Questionnaire including physical, socio-emotional, composite and overall QOL, Objective assessment of functional mouth opening and Nasolabial crease scar assessment using Vancouver scar scale was done. Majority of the subjects, 98.4% were male. Maximum cases were involving the lower gingivobuccal complex and retromolar trigone followed by buccal mucosa. Majority of the tumors were T2, 53.1% followed by T1, 18.8%. Statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference was found in relation to age, tumor size (T1, T2, T3), absence of adjuvant radiation therapy, presence or absence of neck dissection, tumor site; buccal mucosa and lower gingivobuccal complex plus retromolar trigone and intact bone status in physical functional, social-emotional subscores, composite score and overall QOL assessment. Improved mouth opening postoperatively was statistically significant (p < 0.05) in T1 and T2 lesions of buccal mucosa and lower gingivobuccal complex plus retromolar trigone who did not receive radiation and with intact bone status. Majority of the cases, 36.7% had a nasolabial crease scar score 2. Nasolabial flap is a viable option in the reconstruction of small and medium sized oral defects with good quality of life (QOL) outcome and objective outcome as depicted by significantly improved mouth opening. The aesthetic outcome of nasolabial crease scar is good in our study.
KeywordsOral cancer Nasolabial flap reconstruction Quality of life Scar score
Dr Deepa R. Shetty, M D for statistical analysis of data.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Knezevic P et al (2002) Quality of life assessment for intraoral reconstruction. Acta Stomatol croat 36(1):47–50Google Scholar
- 3.Wright HV, Stephan S, Netterville JL Nasolabial flap for oral cavity reconstruction. Open access atlas of otolaryngology- head and neck operative surgery. https://vula.uct.ac.za/access/content/group/ba5fb1bdbe95-48e5-81be-586fbaeba29d/Nasolabial%20flap%20for%20oral%20cavity%20reconstruction.pdf
- 4.Cormack GC, Lamberty BGH (1994) The fasciocutaneous system of vessels. In: The arterial anatomy of skin flaps, 2nd edn. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 105–129Google Scholar
- 5.More CB, Das S, Patel H, Adalja C, Kamatchi V, Venkatesh R (2011) Proposed clinical classification for oral submucous fibrosis. Oral Oncol 48:200–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2011.10.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Bhanja A, D’Souza DSJ, Roy C, Poddar RN (2016) Assessment of quality of life in oral cancer patients following pectoralis major myocutaneous flap reconstruction. Int J Contemp Med Res 3:1366–1371Google Scholar
- 12.Shah JP (2019) Oral cavity. In: Shah JP, Singh B, Patel SG, Wong RJ (eds) Jatin shah’s Head and neck surgery and oncology, 5th edn. Elsevier, Philadelpia, pp 245–298Google Scholar