ReviewArchives of craniofacial surgery2015
Reconstructive Trends in Post-Ablation Patients with Esophagus and Hypopharynx Defect.
Review in Archives of craniofacial surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Edge De-epithelialization for Reducing Pharyngocutaneous Fistula in Patch Free Flap Reconstructions for Salvage Total Laryngectomy Defects: A Case-Control Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- DNA Methylation Dynamics During Esophageal Epithelial Regeneration Following Repair with Acellular Silk Fibroin Grafts in Rat.Advanced biology · 2023Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Microsurgical Pharyngolaryngeal and Pharyngoesophageal Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Neopharyngeal Stricture following Laryngectomy.Seminars in plastic surgery · 2023Review
- Hypopharynx reconstruction for primary hypopharyngeal carcinoma: a retrospective study and literature review.Translational cancer research · 2021Article
- Molecular mechanisms of esophageal epithelial regeneration following repair of surgical defects with acellular silk fibroin grafts.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Bi-layer silk fibroin grafts support functional tissue regeneration in a porcine model of onlay esophagoplasty.Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The main challenge in pharyngoesophageal reconstruction is the restoration of swallow and speech functions. The aim of this paper is to review the reconstructive options and associated complications for patients with head and neck cancer. A literature review was performed for pharynoesophagus reconstruction after ablative surgery of head and neck cancer for studies published between January 1980 to July 2015 and listed in the PubMed database. Search queries were made using a combination of 'esophagus' and 'free flap', 'microsurgical', or 'free tissue transfer'. The search query resulted in 123 studies, of which 33 studies were full text publications that met inclusion criteria. Further review into the reference of these 33 studies resulted in 15 additional studies to be included. The pharyngoesophagus reconstruction should be individualized for each patient and clinical context. Fasciocutaneous free flap and pedicled flap are effective for partial phayngoesophageal defect. Fasciocutaneous free flap and jejunal free flap are effective for circumferential defect. Pedicled flaps remain a safe option in the context of high surgical risk patients, presence of fistula. Among free flaps, anterolateral thigh free flap and jejunal free flap were associated with superior outcomes, when compared with radial forearm free flap. Speech function is reported to be better for the fasciocutaneous free flap than for the jejunal free flap.
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.