MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Free Vascularized Flap and the Flap Plate Options: Comparative Results of Reconstruction of Lateral Mandibular Defects

2000· article· en· W2057165535 on OpenAlex
Thomas Shpitzer, Patrick Gullane, Peter C. Neligan, Jonathan C. Irish, Jeremy E. Freeman, Michiel W. M. van den Brekel, Eyal Gur

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Laryngoscope · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFree flapSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyMandible (arthropod mouthpart)Statistical significanceSwallowingFree flap reconstructionOral cavityDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it