Donor site morbidity after scapula free flap surgery of head and neck reconstruction: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The scapula free flap is becoming increasingly more utilized in head and neck reconstruction due to its natural geometry and soft tissue versatility. This study reviews the incidence rate, risk factors, and treatments of complications of scapula donor site morbidity. METHODS: A review was performed for articles published between October 1990 and November 2022 in Medline (OVID), PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL. After screening, 24 articles meeting the criteria were included. RESULTS: Overall, 660 head and neck surgeries with the scapula donor bone across 24 studies were included. Twenty studies of 612 scapula free flaps reported a pooled postoperative complication rate of 10.7%, with no major complications. Seven studies of 199 scapula reconstructions showed a mean Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score of 14.39/100. CONCLUSION: With its low rate of morbidity, the scapula flap presents itself as a good alternative for patients at risk for poor healing.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".