ArticleClinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology2021
Externally Monitored Versus Conventional Buried Flaps in Laryngopharyngeal Reconstruction.
Article in Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology, 2021. 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.
- Monitoring Buried Flap in Pharyngeal Defect Reconstruction.Indian journal of plastic surgery : official publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of India · 2023Article
- Cumulative Sum Analysis of the Learning Curve of Free Flap Reconstruction in Head and Neck Cancer Patients.Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the surgical outcomes of externally monitored and conventional buried flaps with the goal of determining the usefulness of external monitoring of buried flaps.
methodsIn this case-control study with propensity score matching, 30 patients were evenly divided into externally monitored buried flap and conventional buried flap groups. The total operative time for free flap reconstruction, the flap survival rate, the length of hospital stay, the initial time of a reliable visual assessment, complications, the final diet achieved, and the duration until diet initiation were compared between the groups.
resultsThe mean operative time for reconstruction was 115 minutes (interquartile range, 85-150 minutes) and 142 minutes (interquartile range, 95-180 minutes) in the externally monitored and conventional groups, respectively (P= 0.245). The median length of hospital stay was 24 days (interquartile range, 18-30 days) and 27 days (interquartile range, 20-41 days) in the externally monitored and conventional groups, respectively (P=0.298). The median duration until diet initiation was 15 days (interquartile range, 15-21 days) and 18 days (interquartile range, 15-34 days) in the externally monitored and conventional groups, respectively (P=0.466). The final diet, initial time of a reliable visual assessment, and complications were comparable between the groups, but the external skin paddle provided an excellent visual assessment immediately postoperatively in all cases.
conclusionThe outcomes were comparable between the groups, indicating that externalization of the cutaneous component of a buried flap may be a straightforward and useful technique for monitoring a buried anterolateral thigh free flap in laryngopharyngeal reconstructions. The salvage and false-positive rates of compromised flaps should be compared in large subject groups in future studies to prove that the use of an external skin paddle improves flap monitoring.
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.