Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30863210›Full record

ReviewSeminars in plastic surgery2019

Free Flap Reconstruction of the Maxilla.

Aurora Vincent, Jason Burkes, Fayette Williams, Yadranko Ducic

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in plastic surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Single-Stage Reconstruction of Maxillectomy and Midfacial Defects in Cases of Covid Associated Mucormycosis.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Free flap for soft palate reconstruction: long-term functional evaluation of a new technique.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Aurora VincentOtolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington.
Jason BurkesMaxillofacial Oncology and Microvascular Reconstructive Surgery, John Peter Smith Hospital, Fort Worth, Texas.
Fayette WilliamsMaxillofacial Oncology and Microvascular Reconstructive Surgery, John Peter Smith Hospital, Fort Worth, Texas.
Yadranko DucicOtolaryngology and Facial Plastic Surgery Associates, Fort Worth, Texas.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tumors of the maxilla and midface are some of the most difficult to manage, not only in terms of treatment but also in terms of achieving acceptable orofacial reconstruction. Today, free flaps dominate the reconstructive field. Many patients can achieve successful reconstruction after free flap transfer with a return of intelligible speech, a regular diet, and acceptable cosmesis. Herein, the authors review free flap reconstruction of the maxilla, with a focus on the classifications of defects, when obturators are appropriate, types and sources of free flaps, and complications for which to beware.

Indexed as

free flapsmaxillary prosthesismaxillary reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID30863210
PMCPMC6408236

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.