Use of the External Jugular Vein as the Sole Recipient Vein in Head and Neck Free Flap Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The selection of recipient vessels suitable for microvascular anastomosis within the head and neck region is an essential element affecting patency and outcome. Our aim was to ascertain whether the use of external jugular vein as the sole recipient vein is related to an increase in free flap failure in head and neck reconstructive surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review of all head and neck free flaps performed at an academic centre during a 3-year period was performed. Cases in which the external jugular vein was the lone recipient vein were analyzed. The same two surgeons completed all microvascular anastomosis. The outcome measure was free flap survival. RESULTS: Forty-seven of 49 flaps (96%), which used the external jugular vein as the sole recipient vein, survived. The two failures resulted from venous thrombosis but were successfully salvaged. CONCLUSION: The free flap success rate is well within the range of figures previously reported in large studies. Use of the external jugular vein as the sole recipient vein in head and neck free flap reconstruction does not increase the risk of free flap failures. This suggests that the external jugular vein is a viable option when choosing a single recipient vein in head and neck free tissue transfers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".