Submandibular Gland Reduction in Aesthetic Surgery of the Neck
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The indications for reduction of excessive submandibular gland volume in aesthetic rejuvenation of the neck have been well described, as has the surgical anatomy and the surgical technique. Despite this, submandibular gland reduction does not appear to be widely adopted, nor have significant case series been reported in the literature. This review of a consecutive series of aesthetic submandibular gland reductions was undertaken to provide a perspective about its place in neck contouring. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients on whom the senior author (B.C.M.) had performed submandibular gland reduction for aesthetic reasons. Complications and reoperations were specifically analyzed. RESULTS: Submandibular gland reduction was performed in 112 of 736 consecutive face lifts between 2002 and 2013, an incidence of 13 percent in primary face lifts and 25 percent in secondary face lifts. The median patient age was 57 years, and 87 percent were women. Major complications were those requiring early reoperation (1.8 percent) to manage significant hematomas; one was potentially fatal. Minor complications (10.8 percent) were managed nonoperatively. Submandibular sialocele (4.5 percent) and marginal mandibular branch neurapraxia (4.5 percent) were the most frequent, and all resolved fully by 3 months. Significantly, no patient reported a permanent dry mouth. CONCLUSIONS: The complication rate with submandibular gland reduction is comparable to that of a neck lift with platysma plication alone, with some additional specific risks: (1) catastrophic airway compression from bleeding deep in the neck, (2) significant increase of neurapraxias in secondary neck lifts, and (3) a moderate incidence of benign submandibular sialocele. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".