Use of acellular dermal matrices in laryngotracheal and pharyngeal reconstruction: systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acellular dermal matrices are increasingly used in laryngotracheal and pharyngeal reconstruction, but specific indications and the type of acellular dermal matrix used vary. The authors systematically reviewed outcomes relating to acellular dermal matrix use in head and neck reconstruction. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched through 1 May 2016 for literature on acellular dermal matrix use in laryngotracheal and pharyngeal reconstruction. Studies were appraised for surgical indications, outcomes and study design. RESULTS: Eleven publications with 170 cases were included. Eight articles reported on acellular dermal matrix use in oncological reconstruction. Most studies were case series; no high-level evidence studies were identified. Graft extrusion was more common in non-oncological applications. In general, post-oncological reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix demonstrated complication rates similar to those reported without an acellular dermal matrix. CONCLUSION: Evidence in support of acellular dermal matrix use in head and neck reconstruction is generally poor. Prospective comparative studies are required to define the indications, safety and effectiveness of acellular dermal matrices in laryngotracheal and pharyngeal 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".