Oncologic Safety of Facial‐Vessel–Based Buccinator Myomucosal Flaps for Tongue and Oral Floor Reconstruction: A Retrospective Multicenter Case–Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Buccinator myomucosal flaps (BMFs) have been proposed as a reconstructive solution for defects of the tongue and oral floor; however, their harvest requires preservation of the facial artery and vein. This study aimed to evaluate the oncologic safety of this approach compared with free fasciocutaneous flaps (FFF). METHODS: A retrospective multicenter case-control study including cT1-T3 cN0 tongue/oral floor squamous cell carcinoma was performed. Cases received BMFs while controls received FFFs. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) tested for non-inferiority. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and cumulative incidence of local, regional, and distant recurrence using competing-risk methods. RESULTS: A total of 615 patients (BMF n = 390; FFF n = 225) with comparable baselines were included. Five-year PFS was 69.8% (BMF) versus 66.2% (FFF); adjusted HR (FFF vs. BMF) 0.87 (95% CI: 0.43-1.78), meeting non-inferiority. Five-year OS was 77.9% versus 73.5%. Cumulative incidence of recurrence was similar: local 7.5% versus 8.3%, regional 6.3% versus 6.1%, and distant 2.1% versus 1.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Preservation of the facial artery and vein during selective neck dissection did not compromise oncologic outcomes. Facial-vessel-based BMFs are a valid option for small-to-medium tongue/oral floor defects in appropriately selected cN0 patients when meticulous level I clearance is performed and a pull-through resection is not required.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".