Facial artery myomucosal flap vs. Islanded facial artery myomucosal flap viability: A systematic review

5Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to estimate the overall viability of the islanded facial artery myomucosal flap (iFAMM) compared to the facial artery myomucosal flap (FAMM). A systematic review of English articles was performed on PubMed and Cochrane Library electronic databases. Search terms included every nomenclature variant for FAMM flap and iFAMM flap. A total of 373 articles were identified, and 20 articles were considered eligible for inclusion in the review. A total of 486 flaps were evaluated (350 FAMM and 136 i-FAMM flaps). In all studies, the primary outcome assessed was flap viability, collecting the rate of total and partial flap necrosis and then comparing FAMM to i-FAMM. Overall reported partial/total necrosis rate for FAMM flap was 9.7%, 1.4% as total and 8.3% as partial necrosis. Overall partial/total reported necrosis rate for iFAMM flaps was 2.2%, 1.5% as total and 0.7% as partial necrosis. FAMM flaps, both as classical or islanded variants, are an effective option for intraoral small/medium sized defect reconstruction. Outcomes from the present review show a higher partial/total survival rate when this flap is harvested as islanded flap.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lo Giudice, G., Fragola, R., Nicoletti, G. F., Cervino, G., Pedullà, E., Zerbinati, N., & Rauso, R. (2021). Facial artery myomucosal flap vs. Islanded facial artery myomucosal flap viability: A systematic review. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 11(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/app11094202

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free