MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Advances in flap surgical techniques and regenerative approaches for reconstruction of extensive defects in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review of functional and aesthetic outcomes

2024· review· en· W4405355799 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Diego R. Z. Ospina, S. Ruíz, Andres S. Galindo, A. Javier

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Research in Medical Sciences · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBasal cellSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

About 20–30% of non-melanoma skin malignancies globally are cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCCs). Achieving the best functional and cosmetic results in complex and Long-term instances that need rebuilding is extremely difficult. Though they lack a thorough assessment of their efficacy but recent developments in flap surgery and regenerative medicines present encouraging alternatives. We only included papers which are published between 2000-2024 were included in the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) -guided systematic review. Data were taken from 45 studies with 3,560 individuals (9 RCTs, 20 cohort studies, and 11 case series). Functional recovery, cosmetic satisfaction, and the rates of complications for both regenerative (such as platelet-rich plasma [PRP] and bioengineered scaffolds) and advanced flap techniques like perforator and free tissue flaps were evaluated. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the ROB 2 tool were used to evaluate the risk of bias. Compared to pedicled flaps (7.2/10, p<0.01), perforator flaps showed a 96.5% success rate and better functional recovery (mean mobility score: 8.5/10). Although free tissue transfers had a greater rate of complications (18%) but they produced the greatest aesthetic satisfaction scores (85%). Regenerative techniques enhanced wound healing by 25% and decreased infection rates by 15% (p=0.04). Graft survival was increased to 90% with bioengineered scaffolds as opposed to 75% without them. Complication rates were 20% overall but in high-risk instances, regenerative treatments reduced them to 10%. After all research, we can conclude that for cSCC reconstruction, the combination of regenerative procedures and sophisticated flap techniques minimizes problems while optimizing functional and aesthetic results. Free tissue transfers are favored for cosmetic reasons however perforator flaps are excellent for functional recovery. Regenerative methods like PRP and scaffolds can enhance surgical outcomes and durability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Research in Medical SciencesSame topicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207