RESUMO
Background: The lip has functional and aesthetic importance. Lip defects occur due to the variety of etiology and the choice of their reconstruction has profound effect on functions and cosmesis. There are multiple options available for reconstruction according to defect size, but superiority of one method over another is still debated and hence the methods and their outcome were analyzed prospectively. Material and method: Twenty-one patients with all sizes and locations of defects in upper and lower lip with acquired etiology were included in the evaluation. Reconstruction was performed according to defect size, availability of local/regional and distant donor tissue, defect location, patients' comorbid conditions and patients' preference. Patients were assessed at 1 month and 6 months postoperatively. Observers' and patients' input were also taken into account for outcome. Results: Out of 21 patients, 5 free radial artery forearm flap reconstructions, 4 nasolabial flap reconstructions, 5 primary closures of defect, 4 Estlander flap reconstructions, 2 lip advancements, and one Karapandzic flap reconstruction were done. Free flap and nasolabial flap had hypoesthesia and incompetence if commissure is reconstructed and problem of bulk, restricted mobility and vermilion mismatch. Local and lip flaps were associated with decreased stoma size and some form of local scarring and asymmetry. However, all patients were satisfied with the functional and aesthetic outcome. Conclusion: Local flaps are better in terms of functional and aesthetic outcome but with some degree of microstomia which was well tolerated by most patients. Regional and distant flaps provide reconstruction where no other option is available and provide good functional support and acceptable cosmesis.
