Comparison of Fibular and Scapular Osseous Free Flaps for Oromandibular Reconstruction
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IMPORTANCE: Provides an approach to osseous free flap selection for reconstruction of segmental mandible defects that takes into consideration general medical status of the patient and reconstruction requirements; demonstrates the complementary qualities of fibular and subscapular system free flaps; and describes the different surgical indications for lateral border scapular and scapular tip free flaps. OBJECTIVES: To review our experience with osseous mandible reconstruction comparing the fibular and subscapular system free flaps, determine reconstruction-specific and general health variables that may differ between these patient groups, and present our approach to oromandibular reconstruction. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Academic tertiary care medical center. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 110 patients (68 male, 42 female) undergoing single-stage oromandibular reconstructions with free-tissue transfers between May 1, 2006, and May 30, 2012. INTERVENTION: Single-stage oromandibular reconstruction with free-tissue transfer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences in patient demographics, bone and soft-tissue aspects of the reconstruction, operative time, flap outcomes, and major postoperative complications between fibular, lateral scapular border, and scapular tip free flaps. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients underwent 113 reconstructions, including 58 fibular free flaps (FFFs) (51.3%) and 55 subscapular system flaps (48.7%). Of the subscapular system free flaps, 27 flaps (49%) were scapular tip free flaps (STFFs) based on the angular artery branch of the thoracodorsal pedicle; the remaining 28 cases were lateral scapular border flaps (LSBFs). Patients undergoing reconstruction with FFFs were significantly younger than their subscapular system flap counterparts (56 vs 70 years, P < .001). Mean mandible defect lengths were similar for patients undergoing FFF and LSBF reconstruction (7.8 and 7.7 cm, respectively); STFFs were used to reconstruct significantly shorter defects (mean, 6.0 cm, P < .001). The FFFs were more commonly used for anterior mandible defects in which multiple osteotomies and limited soft tissue were required, while subscapular flaps were more commonly used for linear mandible defects with complex soft-tissue requirements. A single complete flap loss occurred in a patient who underwent reconstruction with an STFF; other complication rates were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The FFFs and subscapular flaps are complementary options for oromandibular reconstruction. The FFF is ideal for younger patients, extended defects, multiple osteotomies, and limited soft-tissue requirements. The subscapular system free flaps (LSBF and STFF) are excellent options for (1) elderly patients; (2) those with significant comorbidities, such as peripheral vascular disease; and (3) mandible defects associated with complex soft-tissue requirements. Furthermore, the STFF offers a reliable option to reconstruct short-segment defects, in particular, defects involving the angle of the mandible.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».