Clavipectoral Osteomyocutaneous Free Flap in Oromandibular Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Mandibular reconstruction continues to challenge most head and neck reconstructive surgeons despite the tremendous advances in surgical and fixation techniques. We recently described the clavipectoral osteocutaneous flap for mandibular reconstruction. This flap encompasses the clavicle and the clavicular head of the pectoralis major with overlying skin. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article is to report our prospective clinical experience with the use of clavipectoral osteocutaneous flap in the reconstruction of oromandibular defects. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective case series. METHODS: Five patients with significant mandibular defects underwent reconstruction using the newly described clavipectoral flap. All patients had shoulder range of motion testing preoperatively and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Panorex and bone scans were obtained on the seventh postoperative day. RESULTS: All five flaps survived. The transferred clavicles demonstrated good vascularity on the postoperative bone scans. The shoulder morbidity was minimal, with all patients resuming their preoperative level of activity. CONCLUSIONS: The clavipectoral flap has bone and soft tissue components that are especially suited for composite mandibular defects, but it should be used as a second-line flap owing to the short pedicle and the regular need for vein grafts.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".