MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312039330 · doi:10.7759/cureus.32358

One Versus Two Veins in Free Anterolateral Thigh Flap Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4312039330 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Evan O Wright, Shafiq Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisSurgeryAnatomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is considerable debate in the literature as to whether one or two venous anastomoses are optimal in the anterolateral thigh (ALT) free-flap reconstruction. The literature is currently devoid of a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating these procedures. This review will therefore be the first to address this clinical question. In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, two authors (EW and SR) independently searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Case-control, randomised control and observational studies were included. The authors did not include case reports, case series, letters or abstracts. All patients were included regardless of age, co-morbidity status, and the anatomical site of reconstruction. Venous congestion/thrombosis, flap take-back rate due to venous insufficiency, flap loss and operative time were the primary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measures included partial flap loss and haematoma formation. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Review Manager 5.4 data synthesis software was used for the analysis. The authors identified eight observational studies, with a total of 1741 patients reviewed, demonstrating a significantly lower flap take-back rate for a double venous anastomosis and a shorter operative time in the single venous anastomosis group. However, other reported measures, including venous congestion and flap loss, showed a non-significant difference (P>0.05). The limitations of the evidence included in this review were that all studies were observational in design. The flap take-back rate is significantly less when anastomosing two veins, and the authors recommend that utilising a second vein can circumvent the caveat of venous compromise.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.047
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207