Decreasing Revision Surgery in <scp>FAMM</scp> Flap Reconstruction of the Oral Cavity: Traditional Versus Modified Harvesting Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the surgical and functional outcomes between two harvesting techniques for the inferiorly based facial artery musculomucosal (FAMM) flap for oral cavity and oropharynx reconstructions. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective chart review. RESULTS: We reviewed 55 cases of FAMM flap, including 29 traditional cases and 26 performed using the modified harvesting method. The overall rate of surgical re-intervention in the traditional group was 31% (n = 9 of 29) and 15% (n = 4 of 26) in the modified group (P = 0.196). The specific re-intervention rate for pedicle sectioning was 27% (n = 8 of 29) in the traditional group versus 0% (n = 0 of 26) in the modified group. The overall rate of complications was 21%. Nine out of 10 dentate patients in the traditional group and four out of five in the modified group needed tooth extraction. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of tracheostomy duration (P = 0.338) and time to first oral intake (P = 0.629). Speech and feeding outcomes were similar among groups (P = 0.922; P = 0.700, respectively). Dental rehabilitation was achieved in 67% and 78% of patients in the traditional and modified groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: The FAMM flap offers a low morbidity approach to reconstruct the oral cavity. The modified approach to harvesting the flap is a safe and effective technique, with similar functional results and equally low morbidity profile as the traditional technique. It has the added advantage of lower rates of secondary surgical interventions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 1802-1805, 2018.
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) | 0.001 | 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".