ArticleWorld journal of surgery2017
Facelift Approach for Resecting Benign Upper Neck Masses.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopically-Assisted Scar-Free Midline Neck Mass Excision.Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology · 2021Review
- Retroauricular endoscope-assisted versus conventional submandibular gland excision for benign and malignant tumors.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated the feasibility of non-magnified resection of various benign lesions of the upper neck using the facelift incision without endoscopic equipment to establish indications for the procedure.
methodsThis retrospective analysis examined 86 patients who underwent surgery for upper neck masses using the facelift incision or conventional transcervical incision at our institute between January 2012 and December 2015.
resultsWe performed 41 operations using facelift incisions (facelift group) and 45 using conventional horizontal incisions (conventional group). All 86 operations were successful. In the facelift group, no patient needed conversion to conventional open resection and no patient required the use of an endoscopic device due to a limited surgical view for safe resection. There were no major surgical complications in either group. Transient sensory changes in the auricle occurred in 26% of the patients in the facelift group, but all patients recovered within 2 months. In all patients in the facelift group, the scars were invisible as they were covered by the auricle and hair, while the surgical scars were noticeable in 91% (41/45) of the patients in the conventional group when they were wearing standard shirts (p < 0.001) at 3-4 weeks after surgery.
conclusionsThe facelift approach provides a short direct route to upper neck masses, and it enables an adequate workspace not only for endoscopic or robotic surgery, but also for open surgery with the naked eye. The surgical indications for the facelift incision include the removal of most benign tumors occurring in the upper neck at levels II and III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.