Osseocartilaginous Rib Graft L-Strut for Nasal Framework Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the setting of major nasal framework reconstruction, it is critical to create a stable, warp-resistant L-strut to resist the contractile forces of healing to achieve a durable outcome. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to demonstrate the effectiveness of the osseocartilaginous rib graft for nasal framework reconstruction. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed of all patients who underwent osseocartilaginous rib graft for L-strut reconstruction from 2007 to 2017 at a tertiary care hospital. Only patients with severe framework-only defects (Type IV, Daniel Classification) or total/subtotal nasal defects (Type V, Daniel Classification) were included. Primary outcome measures were: (1) maintenance of projection; (2) graft warping; and (3) graft resorption. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients aged an average of 54.6 years underwent nasal framework reconstruction with an osseocartilaginous rib graft L-strut. Eighteen patients had framework-only deformities (Daniel Type IV) and 8 had total or subtotal nasal deformities (Daniel Type V). Twelve patients underwent reconstruction for autoimmune mediated deformity, 10 for malignancy, 3 for traumatic injury, and 1 for an iatrogenic deformity. Average follow-up was 21 months. There was no observed warping of the L-strut construct, and all but 2 patients demonstrated total maintenance of projection. Resorption of the caudal cartilage graft was identified as the etiology of partial loss of projection in 2 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The osseocartilaginous rib graft L-strut provides a stable, warp-resistant construct for patients lacking major dorsal and caudal support, which may be applied to reconstruction of defects due to malignancy, autoimmune, traumatic, or iatrogenic etiologies.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".