Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsProspective StudyPubMed

[Nasal reconstruction with a three-staged forehead flap: assessment of 16 cases].

Nicolas J., Labbé D., Soubeyrand E., Guillou-Jamard MR., Rysanek B., Compère JF.

Prospective Study with a reported sample of 16 on Scar, published in Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac (2007) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Prospective Study
Journal
Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac (2007)
Country
France
Reported sample size
16
Source database
PubMed
PMID
17275048
DOI
10.1016/j.stomax.2005.12.001

Abstract (original English)

We report our experience in 16 patients with a three-staged forehead flap, described by Millard (1974) and Burguet (1992) for nasal reconstruction. We wanted to determine whether the three-stage procedure improves the quality of the final aesthetic result. Sixteen patients underwent forehead flap nasal reconstruction between June 2002 and February 2005. Reconstruction was performed in three stages, a first stage for the transfer of the forehead flap on the nose, a second stage where the pediculized forehead flap was thinned (day 15) and a third stage for division of the pedicle (day 30). The quality of the final aesthetic result of nasal reconstruction was evaluated 6 months postoperatively, by the patient (patient's satisfaction with the nasal reconstruction [4 points]) and by the surgical team according to the thickness of the flap (3 points), integration of the scars (1 point), color of the flap (1 point) and the redefinition of the natural contour of the nose (1 point). A final 10-point score was used to assess the quality of the result: very good (score above 8), good (score from 7 to 8), average (score from 5 to 7) and poor (score less than 5). Sixteen nasal reconstructions were followed to completion. Outcome was considered very good in ten (62.5%), good in three (18.7%) and fair in three (18.7%). Use of the three-stage procedure for forehead flap nasal reconstruction im

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence
Adipose TissueAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinomaFemaleForeheadHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research