A multi-centre, participant-blinded, randomized, 3-year study to compare the efficacy of Virtual Surgical Planning (VSP) to Freehand Surgery (FHS) on bony union and quality of life outcomes for mandibular reconstruction with fibular and scapular free flaps: study protocol for a randomized phase II/III trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advanced head and neck malignancies with underlying bony involvement often require aggressive oncological resection of large segments of the oral cavity including the mandible. These patients require vascularized donor osseous free tissue transfer to reconstruct significant defects. Traditionally, the donor bone is harvested on its vascular supply and shaped to the defect in a free hand fashion (FHS). However, virtual surgical planning (VSP) has emerged as a method to optimize reconstructive outcomes and decrease operative time. The goals of this study are to assess superiority of VSP to FHS by comparing bony union rates at 12 months, short and long-term complication rates, reconstruction accuracy, quality of life (QOL), functional outcomes, and economic analysis. METHODS: This is a multicenter phase II/III study randomizing four hundred twenty head and neck patients undergoing mandibulectomy in a 1:1 ratio between VSP and FHS. Intention-to-treat analysis will be performed for patients enrolled but unable to undergo VSP-aided reconstruction. The primary endpoint is bony-union rates at 1 year post-operatively. Secondary outcomes include complication rates, QOL, functional outcomes, and economic burden. DISCUSSION: This study will provide an assessment of two different surgical approaches to the reconstructive methods of mandible defects using fibular or scapular free flaps on bony-union rates, complications, QOL and economics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05429099. Date of registration: June 23, 2022. Current version: 1.0 on March 6, 2024.
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 | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".