Cosmetic outcomes following head and neck melanoma reconstruction: The patient's perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While studies have compared aesthetic outcomes following wide local excision of head and neck melanoma, none have evaluated this important outcome from the patient's perspective. Indeed, one could argue that the psychosocial impact of head and neck melanoma excision and reconstruction is more accurately assessed by deriving patient-based as opposed to surgeon-based outcome measures. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate aesthetic outcomes following wide local excision of head and neck melanoma from the patient's perspective. METHODS: Fifty-one patients who underwent excision of 57 head and neck melanomas followed by immediate closure by primary repair, skin grafting, local flap coverage or free tissue transfer were asked to complete a written survey at least six months after their surgery. A visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to assess the patient's perception of appearance alteration, satisfaction with his or her appearance, and emotional impairment. An ordinal scale was used to evaluate several criteria of the reconstructive outcome (pain, itching, colour, scarring, stiffness, thickness and irregularity). RESULTS: Forty-two patients (82.4%) completed the survey. There were significant correlations between VAS scores reported for appearance alteration, satisfaction with outcome and emotional impairment (P=0.001). Patients who received skin grafts reported significantly unfavourable VAS scores compared with other methods of reconstruction (P=0.046). Moreover, skin grafts received significantly worse ordinal scale ratings for itching (P=0.043), colour (P=0.047), scarring (P=0.003) and stiffness (P=0.041) compared with other methods of reconstruction. Both skin grafts and free flaps were reported to have significantly less favourable thickness (P=0.012) and irregularity (P=0.036) than primary closure or local tissue transfer. There was no significant difference between patients undergoing primary closure with local tissue transfer (P>0.413). Other factors related to the patient's VAS scores included location of the melanoma (P=0.033), size of defect (P=0.037) and recurrence of melanoma (P=0.042). CONCLUSION: The degree of emotional impairment following reconstruction of head and neck melanoma excision defects was correlated with the patient's perception of appearance alteration. From the patient's perspective, primary closure and local tissue transfer appeared to result in the highest aesthetic satisfaction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".