Comparison of Donor Site Morbidity Between Anterolateral Thigh and Radial Forearm Free Flaps for Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: This meta-analysis aimed to provide an up-to-date comparison of donor site morbidity (DSM) between patients who underwent head and neck reconstruction with Anterolateral thigh (ALT) and radial forearm free (RFF) flaps. We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies that compared DSM between ALT and RFF patients. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The pooled odds ratio (OR) of each DSM between ALT and RFF patients was estimated using a random- or fixed-effect model depending on the degree of interstudy heterogeneity. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed if substantial heterogeneity was detected. Eighteen cohort studies with 1,018 patients (535 ALT and 483 RFF patients) were included. Compared with RFF, ALT were associated with lower risks of wound dehiscence (OR = 0.2, 95%CI: 0.10-0.42, P < 0.01), strength impairment (OR = 0.18, 95%CI: 0.07-0.47, P < 0.01), and movement impairment (OR = 0.19, 95%CI:0.07-0.49, P < 0.01). A subgroup analysis showed that ALT were associated with a lower risk of donor site numbness among patients undergoing tongue reconstruction (OR = 0.05, 95%CI: 0.01-0.25, P < 0.01), but not among all patients undergoing head and neck reconstruction. The pooled ORs of other DSMs demonstrated no significant difference between ALT and RFF patients. ALT are superior to RFF for head and neck reconstruction in terms of donor site wound dehiscence, strength impairment, movement impairment, and for tongue reconstruction specifically in terms of donor site numbness. No significant differences in the incidence of donor site hematoma/seroma, infection, or dissatisfaction with donor site appearance were identified between ALT and RFF patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".