Ten‐year experience of free flaps in head and neck surgery. How necessary is a second venous anastomosis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Successful free flap surgery in the head and neck is dependent on the successful anastomosis of both artery and vein. The success of all free flaps was analyzed to determine the necessity for performing 2 venous anastomoses. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a single surgeon's 10-year experience (August 1993-August 2003) in free flap reconstruction for malignant tumors of the head and neck. Four hundred ninety-two free flaps were primary reconstructions that did not require a vein graft, vein loop, or cephalic turnover procedure. Three hundred forty-five flaps had 1 venous anastomosis, and 147 flaps had 2 venous anastomoses. RESULTS: Overall, flap success was 468 of 492 (95.1%). Successful flap reconstruction in patients undergoing 2 venous anastomoses was 145 of 147 (98.6%) compared with 323 of 345 (93.6%) in patients undergoing 1 anastomosis (p < .05). CONCLUSION: Where possible, a second venous anastomosis should be performed in head and neck free flap reconstruction.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".