The infraclavicular pedicled flap in head and neck reconstruction: applications and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An infraclavicular pedicled flap (ICPF) was recently described in the literature. This anatomical region is attractive for the restoration of head and neck oncological defects. This paper is a review of our experience with this versatile flap. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted by reviewing the records of all the patients operated in a tertiary-care center between August 2013 and January 2019 whose surgery involved an ICPF. RESULTS: Forty-four patients received an ICPF for various indications, including large vessel coverage in neck/parotid recontouring (34.1%), postlaryngectomy reconstruction (34.1%), and fistula closure (25.0%). All flaps survived. Thirteen patients experienced a postoperative complication (29.5%), six of whom (13.9%) required a repeat procedure under general anesthesia. CONCLUSION: ICPF is suitable for several indications and is a useful adjunctive tool in head and neck reconstruction. It proved to have a high survival rate, with complication rates similar to other regional flaps.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".