Temporoparietal fascia free flap for pharyngeal coverage after salvage total laryngectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to assess whether the use of the temporoparietal fascia as a free flap for pharyngeal closure reinforcement reduced the incidence of pharyngocutaneous fistula (PCF) in the salvage setting. STUDY DESIGN: Consecutive case series. METHODS: After research ethics board approval, 12 patients who required salvage laryngectomy, including reinforcement coverage of the primarily closed pharyngeal defect with temporoparietal fascia as a free tissue transfer, were analyzed. RESULTS: One (8%) out of 12 patients experienced pharyngocutaneous fistula that responded with conservative wound packing. CONCLUSIONS: The PCF rate of 8% is significantly better than in similar salvage cases without flap coverage. Moreover, our PCF rate is comparable to the results shown for the pectoralis major muscle flap. The most obvious benefit of the temporoparietal fascia free flap for pharyngeal coverage in salvage laryngectomy is a reduced PCF rate with diminished donor-site morbidity, including cosmetic outcome, shoulder girdle function, and chest deformity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".