The utility of microvascular anastomotic devices in head and neck reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The use of microvascular anastomotic devices remains controversial in head and neck reconstructive surgery. Although more acceptable in venous anastomosis, their use in arterial anastomosis remains limited. We review the literature to evaluate the evidence both for and against their use, in both venous and arterial anastomoses. RECENT FINDINGS: The current literature supports the use of anastomotic coupling devices in head and neck reconstructive surgery. They have been reported as consistently reducing the anastomotic time with an associated reduction in cold ischaemic time. There is no evidence available to date that shows different thrombotic rates between anastomotic devices and hand sewing or between the different anastomotic devices available in the market. SUMMARY: The current literature would support the use of these devices in both arterial and venous anastomoses. Many microvascular surgeons would prefer to maintain their skills with hand sewing, as the use of an anastomotic coupling device is not always possible. Therefore, a hand-sewn arterial anastomosis and coupled venous anastomosis is a good compromise until larger series of results are available.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".