Microvascular lining options for subtotal and total nasal reconstruction: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Restoration of nasal lining is essential in reconstruction of subtotal/total nasal defects. When local flaps are inadequate, a microvascular flap should be used. The purpose of this scoping review is to map the literature and identify the described flap options for subtotal/total nasal reconstruction. Further to that, we will summarize the stated advantages and disadvantages, evaluate functional and esthetic outcomes, and appraise the current body of literature. METHODS: An electronic literature search was completed. Studies required adult patients with subtotal/total nasal defects and lining reconstruction with microvascular free flap. Two independent reviewers completed screening and data extraction. Flap characteristics, advantages, disadvantages, functional and esthetic outcomes were reviewed. Two independent reviewers evaluated study quality. RESULTS: Of 305 initial articles, 22 studies were included (13 case reports, 9 case series) accounting for 65 flaps. Microvascular flaps varied by composition and anatomical location. For functional outcome, 13 studies used clinical exam by surgeon, 5 reported patient being satisfied, 3 studies used endoscopy, and 1 study used nasometry. Assessing esthetic outcome, 13 studies used clinical exam by surgeon, 5 studies reported patient being satisfied, 1 study used patient-reported outcome measures, and 16 studies included photos. Study quality (modified CARE and PROCESS checklists) was deemed poor. Quality of available evidence was level IV. CONCLUSIONS: Microvascular free flaps for nasal reconstruction, confer an overall satisfactory functional and esthetic outcome. All studies lack a systematic and comprehensive approach to assessing and reporting these outcomes. Future research should provide objective assessment and utilize patient reported outcome measures.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".