The Free Vascularized Flap and the Flap Plate Options: Comparative Results of Reconstruction of Lateral Mandibular Defects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Reconstruction of the mandible and oral cavity after segmental resection is a challenging surgical problem. Although osteocutaneous free flaps are generally accepted to be optimal for reconstruction of anterior defects, the need for bony reconstruction for a pure lateral mandibular defect remains controversial. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. METHODS: A retrospective comparative study of short- and long-term outcomes of three different reconstruction techniques for lateral defects was performed. In total, 57 patients were included, of whom 27 had a plate and pedicled pectoralis major myocutaneous flap (PMMF group), 16 had a plate and free radial forearm flap (FRFF group), and 14 had an osteocutaneous free flap. Functionality, flap failure, and complications were scored. RESULTS: Plates had to be removed in 7 of the 27 patients in the PMMF group and 2 of the 16 in the FRFF group; none of the 14 osteocutaneous free flaps failed. The difference was of borderline statistical significance (P = .055). Longterm functional outcome revealed no statistically significant difference in oral deglutition (P = .76) or in facial contour (P = .36). Oral continence was significantly better in patients in the FRFF group (88%) as compared with the PMMF group (52%) or the osteocutaneous free flap group (43%) (P = .02). On the other hand, the results for speech favored the osteocutaneous free flap group; 13 of 14 patients (92.9%) had a normal score compared with 12 of 16 patients (75%) in the FRFF group and 17 of 27 (63%) in the PMMF group. However, this represented a borderline statistically significant result (P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: For lateral mandibular defects, the osteocutaneous free flap is reliable and durable in the long term. However, in a selected group of patients either of the two flap-plate options is a viable reconstructive option.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".