MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3007631564 · doi:10.1002/lary.28588

What Is the Optimal Timing for Dividing a Forehead Flap?

2020· review· en· W3007631564 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Laryngoscope · 2020
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineSurgeryForeheadNoseEyebrowRhinoplasty

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The forehead flap is a time-honored regional flap that has been used in nasal reconstruction for centuries. The flap is traditionally divided in a second stage 3 to 6 weeks after initial flap elevation and transposition into the defect to be reconstructed. Strengths of the forehead flap include excellent success rates due to the use of a vascular pedicle and well-matched tissue type. Disadvantages include the need for a second surgery and the unwieldy time period that the patient has the flap pedicle from the eyebrow to the nose, with a negative impact on the patient's quality of life. Division of a forehead flap earlier than the standard 3 weeks is therefore a desirable goal if similar aesthetic and functional outcomes can be accomplished without compromising flap viability. Standard practice for nasal reconstruction, dating back centuries, is to divide a flap's pedicle at 3 weeks or longer. Modern nasal reconstruction philosophy also promotes a 3-week minimum for forehead flap pedicle attachment.1 Several recent studies have examined the ramifications of forehead flap division and inset at less than the 3-week interval from the first stage. In these studies, risk factors that affect wound healing and vascular ingrowth included patient comorbidities (e.g., vascular disease, diabetes, immunosuppression), tobacco (nicotine) use, history of radiotherapy, and wound or flap characteristics (Fig. 1). Somoano et al.2 reported survival of a forehead flap after an inadvertent pedicle avulsion 3 days after the initial stage. This prompted a practice of accelerated flap takedown at 1 week. In 26 patients undergoing this accelerated takedown (mean time to division of 7.2 days). They reported no complications. This included patients with underlying cartilage grafts. Of note, this was a retrospective cohort study, and patients with comorbidities thought to have a negative impact on flap survival underwent flap division at later time points at the discretion of the surgeon. Flap viability correlates directly to flap vascularization. In a prospective study, Surowitz and Most3 investigated the progression of relative perfusion of forehead flaps throughout the healing process. Using intraoperative laser fluorescence angiography, the authors reported that significant neovascularization occurs by the end of week 1. By the second week, relative perfusion exceeds the minimum required for tissue viability. Based on these findings, they support division and inset of forehead flaps at 2 weeks in patients with 1) >50% of the nasal defect with vascularized (granulation) tissue, 2) partial thickness defects, and 3) no nicotine use. Surgeons considering a shift to a paradigm of an earlier flap division may benefit from quantifying flap neovascularization. In a 2019 retrospective review of 71 patients, Abdelwahab et al.4 reported that the indocyanine green angiography (SPY Elite System; LifeCell [Branchburg NJ], Novadaq Technologies [Mississauga, ON, Canada) can effectively qualify and quantify perfusion. The system's infrared-sensitive camera can measure the perfusion of the intravascular fluorescent dye, and ensure adequate perfusion of forehead flaps among high-risk patients. They found that a longer time to flap division was associated with increased arterial flow. They admit that the small number of complications encountered in the study limited the analysis of the risk factors associated with flap failure. Increasing the power of future studies may allow for risks of earlier flap division. Finally, Calloway et al.5 demonstrated that early flap division is cost-effective when considering the positive impact of the patient returning to work (e.g., productivity, lost wages) balanced with the additional costs to the healthcare system of laser-assisted angiography. Earlier forehead flap division can have a positive influence on patient quality of life and is a cost-effective option.To shorten the time to forehead flap division, the surgeon should balance individual patient and nasal defect characteristics with the physiologic point of when the viability of the flap will not be adversely affected by the flap division. Evidence with indocyanine green angiography at the time of flap division supports safe and reliable flap division at 2 to 3 weeks in certain patients. Somoano et al. is a level 2 study. Surowitz and Most, Abdelwahab et al., and Calloway et al. are level 4 studies.

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,984
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,112
Tête enseignante GPT0,395
Écart entre enseignants0,282 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle