ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2022
Digital surgery group versus traditional experience group in head and neck reconstruction: a retrospective controlled study to analyze clinical value and time-economic-social effect.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost Outcomes of Virtual Surgical Planning in Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.Head & neck · 2025Pooled it
- Hybrid Reconstruction in Head and Neck Surgery: Integration of Virtual Planning, Navigation, and Robotic Microsurgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Comparison of CAD/CAM and conventional microvascular free bone flaps in reconstructive head and neck surgery: a retrospective analysis of over 110 cases.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Enhancing the accuracy of genioplasty using mixed reality and computer-aided design/manufacturing: a randomized controlled trial.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- [Accurate tissue flap reconstruction method based on the quadratic surface developability for head and neck soft tissue defects].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2023Article
- Enhanced Precision in Genioplasty: A Novel Intraoperative Spatial Repositioning Using Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Technology and a Holographic Mixed Reality Application.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- An engineered biomaterial to harness the differentiation potential of endogenous human gingival mesenchymal stem cells (hGMSCs).Frontiers in dental medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDiscuss the application value of digital surgical technology in the reconstruction of head and neck defects after tumor resection and comprehensively evaluate time-economic-benefit cost.
methodsA retrospective analysis of head and neck cancer patients who underwent reconstructive operations in head and neck surgery at Sichuan Cancer Hospital from January 2015 to January 2021 was performed. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 52 cases were included, including 25 cases using digital surgery (DS) and 27 cases using the conventional surgery (CS). The clinical-pathological characteristics, postoperative complications, functional aesthetic evaluation indexes, and time-cost-satisfaction evaluation indexes between the two groups were compared and statistically analyzed. Typical cases using digital surgery were shared.
resultsOutcomes between the two groups were comparable, and there was no significant difference in survival outcome and follow-up time between the two groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the defect size, pathological type, other major clinicopathological features, or operation-related indicators (P > 0.05). The incidence of titanium plate displacement, deformation or exposure, and facial scar deformity in the DS group was significantly lower than that in the CS group (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in other short-term or long-term complications (P > 0.05). The incidence of dysphagia and eating disorders in the DS group was significantly reduced (P < 0.05). The speech and social functions were improved, but not significantly (P > 0.05). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in the evaluation index of facial aesthetics in this study (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the total operation time, preparation time of bone flap from the donor site, osteotomy time, and reconstruction time in the DS group were significantly lower than those in the traditional operation group (P < 0.05), but the shaping time and vascular anastomosis time of recipient area could not be shortened (P > 0.05). In addition, there was no significant difference in total hospitalization days between the DS group and CS group (P > 0.05), but the time of ICU treatment and postoperative intravenous nutrition support in the DS group were shorter than those in the CS group (P < 0.05). In particular, the preoperative doctor-patient communication of the DS group was more effective, and the treatment satisfaction of patients including their families was higher after operation (P < 0.05).
conclusionComprehensive application of digital surgical technology (CAD, CAM, VR, MA, etc.) in the reconstruction of the head and neck after tumor resection is feasible in clinical practice, which can not only improve the accuracy of repair, decrease some surgical complications, better preserve and improve patient's diet and speech function, and reduce the operation and hospitalization time, but also increase the treatment cost. Furthermore, it is conducive to doctor-patient communication and improves patient satisfaction.
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.