Temporalis muscle flap in craniofacial reconstruction: anatomy, techniques, outcomes, and innovations

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• 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

Abstract (original English)

Background The temporalis muscle flap (TMF) remains an essential reconstructive option in contemporary craniofacial reconstructive surgery (CRS) owing to its reliable vascularity, anatomical proximity to common defect areas, and substantial soft tissue volume. Despite extensive historical use, evolving surgical approaches and novel adjunctive technologies necessitate an updated comprehensive review to guide current clinical practice. Objective This review critically examines the TMF regarding its anatomical considerations, surgical innovations, clinical outcomes, and functional restoration capacities. Additional objectives include a detailed assessment of clinical complications, identification of existing gaps in knowledge, and evidence-based comparisons with alternative reconstructive techniques. Methods An extensive literature review was conducted utilizing current high-quality publications, including systematic reviews, clinical series, cadaveric anatomical studies, and reports detailing innovative techniques from major surgical journals. Specific emphasis was placed on the latest minimally invasive, endoscopic, and robotic-assisted approaches, alongside novel tissue engineering methodologies and virtual surgical planning (VSP). Clinical outcomes, complication rates, patient satisfaction levels, and comparative analyses with alternative reconstructive flaps, including free t

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

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