Osteocutaneous free flaps for mandibular reconstruction: systematic review of their frequency of use and a preliminary quality of life comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the fibula free flap is the most frequently used osteocutaneous flap for mandible reconstruction, and whether it provides quality of life, depression and anxiety advantages. METHODS: A systematic review of the public Medline database was conducted. Thirteen patients who underwent mandibular reconstruction at our hospital centre completed questionnaires to evaluate quality of life, depression and anxiety outcomes. RESULTS: The most frequently used free flaps are those of the fibula (n = 982), radial forearm (n = 201), iliac crest (n = 113), subscapular system (n = 50) and rib-serratus (n = 7). In our patient population, there was a trend towards a better quality of life in those with a fibula free flap. However, patients in this group were significantly younger than patients with other flap types (p = 0.025). Patients with a subscapular system free flap were more depressed (p = 0.031); however, they had large through-and-through defects. CONCLUSION: The flap used most frequently in the literature is the fibula free flap. Comparative quality of life data are lacking, and homogeneous populations should be used to reach significant conclusions.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".