Prospective Cohort Study Comparing Subcutaneous and Sub-Superficial Musculoaponeurotic System Flaps in Superficial Parotidectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare subcutaneous and sub-superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) flaps with regard to aesthetic result and Frey's syndrome following superficial parotidectomy. SETTING: A tertiary care centre. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of 45 patients who underwent superficial parotidectomies for benign disease between 1991 and 1996. All 45 patients completed self-administered questionnaires. Questions regarding perception of a facial contour deformity, Frey's syndrome, and scar rating were included. A total of 28 patients agreed to further direct patient evaluation where starch-iodine testing, photographs of the facial scar and contour, and facial nerve assessment were performed. RESULTS: Overall aesthetic results were acceptable in both groups. Scar rating was consistently higher in the sub-SMAS cohort compared with the subcutaneous group. Similarly, facial contour was found to be superior in the sub-SMAS group. Facial nerve function was normal in both groups. The overall incidence of subjective Frey's syndrome on questionnaire was 45%; however, the incidence of objective Frey's syndrome by starch-iodine testing was higher at 65%. We did not find a significant difference in the incidence of Frey's syndrome between the subcutaneous and the sub-SMAS groups. CONCLUSIONS: Sub-SMAS flaps result in superior facial contours and incisional scars following superficial parotidectomy compared with the subcutaneous flap elevation technique. We found no difference between these flaps with regard to the incidence of Frey's syndrome.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".