Postoperative Outcomes of Local Skin Flaps Used in Oncologic Reconstructive Surgery of the Nasal Ala: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite numerous options for nasal ala reconstruction, advantages and disadvantages of each method are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To summarize reported outcomes of local flaps without the use of grafts for nasal ala oncologic reconstructive surgery. METHODS: A nasal ala-specific protocol was adapted from a previous head- and neck-specific PROSPERO submission (CRD42017071596). The search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL on December 23, 2017 and updated on May 10, 2019. Two reviewers screened 9,313 results from head and neck literature. Study bias was evaluated with the ROBINS-I tool. RESULTS: Subunit-based categorization of included studies identified 12 nasal ala-specific publications. Complications (flap necrosis, hematoma, wound infections, trapdoor deformities, and dehiscence), functional (nasal valve or respiratory dysfunction), and cosmetic (alar rim distortion/asymmetry/notching, secondary/revisionary procedures, and patient satisfaction) outcomes were extracted. CONCLUSION: Generally favorable outcomes are seen in all flaps. Careful consideration of donor sites for interpolation flaps is needed for optimal cosmetic outcomes. Transposition flaps, including laterally based bilobed and trilobed flaps, created good outcomes, although melolabial transposition flaps may produce poorer outcomes compared with melolabial island pedicle advancement flaps. Caution is needed for rotation flaps to prevent nasal valve/respiratory dysfunction due to alar crease contracture or ridge elevation. Further research is needed.
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.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it