Shouldering the load of mandible reconstruction: 81 cases of oromandibular reconstruction with the scapular tip free flap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The scapular tip free flap (STFF) is becoming more popular for oromandibular reconstruction. This article reviewed the early and late outcomes in a larger series over 9 years. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of all consecutive patients who underwent oromandibular reconstruction using the STFF at London Health Sciences Centre. Demographic information, surgical data, and complications were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: From April 2008 to March 2017, 81 STFFs were performed in 80 patients. The average bony reconstruction measured 5.4 cm. Bone-only flaps were utilized in 24 cases (29.6%). Five cases (6.2%) required a single osteotomy. There were 3 (3.7%) flap failures. There were 7 plate extrusions and 11 cases of radiographic nonunion. CONCLUSION: The STFF is a reliable option with acceptable early and long-term results. The STFF may be considered as a first line option especially for shorter bone defects or in conjunction with complex soft tissue requirements.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".