Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32056144›Full record

ReviewJournal of neuro-oncology2020

Reconstruction after open surgery for skull-base malignancies.

Matthew M Hanasono

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Matthew M HanasonoThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 443, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. mhanasono@mdanderson.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5534-5426
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeResection of skull base malignancies that would have been associated with unacceptable morbidity and mortality in the past are now performed with reliable results due in large part to advancements in reconstructive surgery. The goal of this review is to describe the best evidence-based methods of reconstruction following open surgery for skull base tumors in order to attain improved outcomes for patients.

methodsA review of recent studies involving reconstruction following open skull base surgeries was performed.

resultsFree flaps are now the most commonly recommended method for reconstruction following open skull base surgery, although pedicled regional flaps such as the temporalis muscle, supraclavicular, and submental flaps may be good alternatives in specific cases. Recent series suggest high reconstructive free flap survival rates and low levels of recipient site complications, including neurosurgical complications such as cerebrospinal fluid leak. The location of the resection defect predicts the reconstructive challenges and guides pedicled and free flap selection.

conclusionRefinements in flap selection and reconstructive technique continue to improve patient outcomes and decrease complication rates following open surgery for skull base malignancies.

Indexed as

AnimalsEndoscopyHumansNeurosurgical ProceduresPlastic Surgery ProceduresSkull Base NeoplasmsAnterolateral thigh free flapFree flapSkull base reconstructionSkull base surgerySupraclavicular flapTemporalis muscle flap

Identifiers

PMID32056144
OpenAlexW3006147557

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.