The mandibulotomy: Friend or foe? Safety outcomes and literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: To determine the safety outcomes of a unique mandibulotomy technique and to compare results to the world literature. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a tertiary care head and neck cancer practice. METHODS: A total of 220 consecutive lip-splitting mandibulotomy access cases from 1998 to 2006 were identified in the University of Alberta's prospective head and neck surgery database and reviewed with follow-up to June 2009. Uniform surgical technique consisting of a lower lip-splitting incision, incisor extraction, a paramedian stair-step osteotomy, and combination fixation with direct interosseous wires and a compression miniplate was utilized for all cases. Variations from traditional methods include adapting the compression miniplate to the reapproximated, rather than precut, mandible and utilizing a mentalis-wire tacking stitch. The main outcome was the complication rate. Complications were recorded and separated into categories consisting of 1) fixation failure: malunion, nonunion, mandibular fracture, plate failure, wire protrusion; and 2) poor wound healing: hardware exposure, orocutaneous fistulae, osteomyelitis, and osteoradionecrosis. RESULTS: Twenty-three (10.5%) mandibulotomy-related complications occurred in 22 (10.0%) patients. Six (2.7%) cases of fixation failure and 17 (7.7%) cases of poor wound healing were identified. The most common complication was hardware exposure. Uni- and multivariate regression analysis failed to show that any patient, tumor, or perioperative variables were statistically significant predictors of complications. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed complications rates of 5.1% at 6 months, 7.0% at 12 months, and 10.2% at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: The lip-splitting mandibulotomy technique employed provides a safe and effective means of accessing difficult to reach anatomy of the upper aerodigestive tract.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".