Endoscopy-assisted versus open tissue expander placement in plastic and reconstructive surgery: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tissue expansion can be used to overcome challenges due to tissue deficiency in plastic and reconstructive surgery; however, the long expansion process is often accompanied by numerous complications. This meta-analysis aimed to determine whether endoscopy-assisted expander placement could decrease complications and shorten treatment time. This study followed the principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021226116). A literature search was performed in eight databases from their inception dates up to 25 August 2021, to identify clinical studies on endoscopy-assisted and/or open tissue expander placement in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. In seven studies, 194 underwent endoscopy-assisted expander placement, and 565 underwent open expander placement. The overall complication rate in the endoscopy-assisted group was significantly lower than that in the open group (risk difference (RD) −0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI), −0.38, −0.18, p < .001). Subgroup analysis showed significantly lower incidence rates of hematoma, infection and dehiscence in the endoscopy-assisted group. The complication rate in the head/neck was lower with low heterogeneity (RD, −0.18; 95% CI, −0.26 to −0.09, p < .001; I2 = 0%). The endoscopy-assisted group had shorter surgery time, hospital stay and time to full expansion (weighted mean difference (WMD), −13.97 min, −16.88 h, −27.54 days; 95% CI, −15.85, −12.08 min, −24.36, −9.40 h, −38.85, −16.24 days; both p < .001, respectively). Endoscopy-assisted expander placement may help lower the risk of complications, especially in the head/neck, and reduce surgery time, hospital stay, and time to full expansion. Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval; CNKI: China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database; CSTJ, China Science and Technology Journal Database; NOS: the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale; PRISMA: preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses; RCT: randomized controlled trial; RoB: the cochrane risk-of-bias; RD: risk difference; WMD: weighted mean difference; SE: standard error; SND: standard normal deviate
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 | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.066 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".