One Versus 2 Venous Anastomoses in Free Flap Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The necessity of a second venous anastomosis in free flap surgery is controversial. The purpose of this systematic review is to determine whether venous flap failure and reoperation rates are lower when 2 venous anastomoses are performed. The secondary objective is to determine whether venous flap failure and reoperation rates are lower when the 2 veins are from 2 different drainage systems. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the literature identified relevant studies. Investigators independently extracted data on rates of flap failure and reoperation secondary to venous congestion. A meta-analysis was performed; odds ratios (ORs) were pooled using a random-effects model and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Of 18 190 studies identified, 15 were included for analysis. The mean sample size was 287 patients (minimum = 102, maximum = 564). No statistically significant difference in venous flap failure was found when comparing 1 versus 2 venous anastomoses (OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 0.46-3.93). A significant decrease in reoperation rate due to venous congestion was shown (OR: 3.03; 95% CI: 1.64-5.58). The results favor using 2 veins from 2 different systems over veins from the same system (OR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.02-1.27). CONCLUSIONS: There is low-quality evidence suggesting that the use of 2 venous anastomoses will lower the rate of reoperation due to venous congestion. There are insufficient data published to meaningfully compare outcomes of flaps with 2 venous anastomoses from different systems to flaps with anastomoses from the same system.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.029 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it