The Comparison Competence Nasolabial and Forehead Flap for Reparation Nasal Tissue Defect of Basal Cell Carcinoma

Both nasolabial and forehead flaps are utilized for the reparation of nasal soft tissue defects that result from basal cell carcinoma. Utilizing the forehead flap needs twice operation for scar correction and flap base amputation while the nasolabial flap is a more effective one-stage technique.

This prospective study was performed on patients with BCC involving nasal tip and ala regions based on the results of the initial biopsy and was admitted to the surgery department of the Loghman-Hakim Hospital to resect the lesion.

The paramedian forehead flap, in contrast with the nasolabial flap, covers more tissue defects (nasolabial flap 14.38 mm and paramedian forehead flap 19 mm). Patients’ satisfaction with the nasolabial flap was much higher than the paramedian forehead flap (nasolabial flap 94.9% and paramedian forehead flap 91.1%). The need to modify the flap donor site scar of the paramedian forehead flap was much higher than the nasolabial flap (paramedian forehead flap 100%). Infiltrative BCC tumor was the most prevalent one in both the nasolabial and paramedian forehead flaps as compared with other types of BCC (nasolabial flap 38.5% and paramedian forehead flap 54.5%).

This study aimed at comparing the nasolabial flap and paramedian forehead flap for nasal tissue defect repair caused by basal cell carcinoma, attempting to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each technique. The nasolabial flap is found to be more time-efficient, provides better patient satisfaction, and results in less noticeable scarring, while the paramedian forehead flap offers greater coverage for larger defects. Further studies are needed to assess long-term outcomes and provide more comprehensive evidence on efficacy and complications.