Posterior Hypopharyngeal/Upper Esophageal Wall Reconstruction Using a Double-Island Free Fasciocutaneous Anterolateral Thigh Flap: A Case Report and Scoping Review of the Literature.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlabelled Background/Objectives: Isolated defects of the posterior hypopharyngeal/upper esophageal wall are rare, typically arising after cancer resection or complications following cervical spine osteosynthesis. Various local and free flaps are available for reconstruction, but we opted for a double-island anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap in this case. Methods: A scoping review was conducted (June 2024) following PRISMAScR 2018 guidelines in order to examine the coverage options available in the literature for posterior hypopharyngeal/upper esophagus wall defects while also presenting a case where such a defect was covered with a double-island anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap.Eligibility Criteria Human studies describing defect coverage of the posterior hypopharyngeal/upper esophagus wall were included.Sources Of Evidence A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, following PRISMAScR guidelines.Charting Methods Data on surgical techniques, outcomes, and complications were extracted and analyzed by two independent reviewers.Case Report A 57-year-old female developed a chronic posterior wall perforation following Zenker's diverticulum treatment and C5/6 cage osteosynthesis. Reconstruction was performed using a free fasciocutaneous ALT flap with two skin paddles: one (2 × 2 cm) for the esophageal mucosa and an additional vascularized fascia layer (4 × 8 cm) to separate the cage from the hypopharyngeal defect. To enable flap monitoring in the otherwise hidden defect, a second skin island was externalized cervically. Results: Postoperative recovery was uneventful, with a continuous viable flap signal. A Gastrografin swallow test confirmed an intact esophagus without leaks or dehiscences. Oral intake resumed after 10 days. The literature review highlighted 239 cases with multiple reconstructive techniques, each with advantages and limitations. Conclusions: The double-paddle free fasciocutaneous ALT flap is a viable option for posterior hypopharyngeal/upper esophageal wall reconstruction, allowing effective postoperative monitoring. This approach offers a valuable modification for complex cases requiring enhanced structural integrity and flap assessment.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".