Complications of tissue expansion in the head and neck
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The authors aim to present a comprehensive review detailing the present state of evidence with regard to complications following tissue expansion in the head and neck. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify all studies reporting complications of tissue expansion in the head and neck between 2000 and 2019. Subgroup comparisons based on expander locations and planes were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 7058 patients were included. Tissue expansion was associated with an overall complication rate of 8.73% (616/7058). The most common complications were extrusion (207/7009; 3.0%) and hematoma (200/7009; 2.9%). Overall complications were highest in the scalp (65/238; 27.3%) and lowest in the mastoid (347/5688; 6.1%). Complications were more common with expansion in the non-subcutaneous plane (63/590; 10.7%). CONCLUSION: In the absence of large clinical trials, systematic reviews such as these can help inform clinical guidelines and provide practitioners with an evidence-based reference to improve informed consent.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".