The scapular free flap: when versatility is needed in head and neck reconstruction.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the experience with scapular free tissue transfer at the University of Western Ontario and to describe the various applications of both the fasciocutaneous and osteocutaneous versions. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Tertiary care centre. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent a scapular free flap reconstruction between 1997 and 2007. Osteocutaneous and fasciocutaneous flaps were included. Demographic data including gender and age were collected. Defect analysis and complications were also reviewed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Defect analysis, flap-related complications, and non-flap-related complications. RESULTS: Sixty procedures, including 31 osteocutaneous and 29 fasciocutaneous flaps, were performed. Most fasciocutaneous flaps were used for large lateral skull base and facial defects (70%). The skin paddle dimensions ranged from 4 × 3 to 15 × 10 cm. All osteocutaneous flaps were used for mandibular reconstruction. The length of the bony defect ranged between 4 and 12 cm. Eleven patients required osteotomies. In most cases, the facial or external carotid arteries and internal jugular or facial veins were selected as recipient vessels. A vein graft was required in four cases. The total flap failure rate was 5%. Seven patients who had osteocutaneous flaps suffered medical complications, including one mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Scapular free flaps are reliable options. Fasciocutaneous applications are suitable for defects requiring facial contouring or complex skull base defects. Osteocutaneous flaps are acceptable options for patients with comorbidities requiring bony reconstructions. The flap complication rates were acceptable even in medically higher-risk patients.
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 | 0.001 | 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".