Clinical application of tissue adhesives in soft-tissue surgery of the head and neck
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To evaluate the clinical applications of tissue adhesives in soft-tissue surgery of the head and neck, and to highlight the practical and theoretical differences between the various synthetic and biologic products. RECENT FINDINGS: Fibrin glues have been used extensively in head and neck procedures. Fibrin glues have been successfully used to reduce wound drainage and to improve other short-term postoperative results. More recently, commercial systems have become available that allow easy and rapid isolation of autologous tissue adhesives from the patient's own blood during or immediately prior to surgery. SUMMARY: There is intuitive appeal of autologous over donor-derived products. Platelet-rich adhesives possess the added potential of improving wound healing beyond fibrin glues alone. Strong evidence for its efficacy in the clinical setting is, however, lacking. Future investigations need to evaluate the benefits of autologous products in both complex and high-risk surgical wounds, incorporating both short-term and long-term outcome metrics of wound healing and fibrosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".