Functional outcomes of fasciocutaneous free flap and pectoralis major flap for salvage total laryngectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pectoralis major muscle flaps (PMMFs) and fasciocutaneous free flaps (FFFs) are commonly used for reconstruction of the surgical defect after salvage total laryngectomy. This study compared swallowing function in patients who underwent reconstruction with either PMMF or FFF. METHODS: This study was based on a retrospective cohort of patients treated at the CHU de Québec between January 2000 and March 2015. Demographics, chemoradiation data, surgical protocol, pathologic results, complications, evolution, esophageal dilation, diet intake, and feeding tube dependence were documented. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients were analyzed (93 PMMFs and 33 FFFs). Of the patients who received PMMFs, 38.7% had a limited oral intake compared to 15.2% of patients who received FFFs (odds ratio [OR] 3.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-9.99; P = .02). The need for esophageal dilation tended to be greater for PMMF patients (25% vs 9%; OR 3.38; 95% CI 0.94-12.13; P = .06). Complication rates were similar. CONCLUSION: The FFF reconstruction led to better results in terms of swallowing function than PMMF 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".