Scapular angle osteomyogenous flap in postmaxillectomy reconstruction: Defect, reconstruction, shoulder function, and harvest technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maxillary reconstruction continues to challenge in terms of optimal aesthetic and functional outcomes. The aim of this study was to describe the utility of the scapular angle osteomyogenous flap in a series of maxillectomy patients and to examine the donor site morbidity. METHODS: This is a retrospective series of 14 patients undergoing maxillectomy and either primary or secondary reconstruction. The scapular angle can be oriented vertically and horizontally. Aesthetic, functional, and operative morbidity is described. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire was used to examine shoulder and upper limb morbidity. RESULTS: Perioperative morbidity occurred in 4 patients. There were no free flap failures. Functional and aesthetic outcomes were acceptable with all patients having intelligible speech and none requiring nutritional supplementation. The DASH was completed by 12 of 14 patients. The mean and median DASH scores were 10.6 and 13, respectively. All patients gained full range of shoulder movement by 6 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The scapular angle flap is well suited for maxillary reconstruction and donor site morbidity is low.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".