ArticleArchives of craniofacial surgery2022
Current status and evolution of microsurgical tongue reconstructions, part I.
Article in Archives of craniofacial surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functional outcomes in early-stage tongue cancer patients following partial glossectomy: a pilot study comparing primary closure and secondary healing with biomaterials.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Age-Based Comparison of Head and Neck Cancer Characteristics and Reconstructive Outcomes: Retrospective Review of 286 Patients.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Lingual pedicle intraoral anastomosis for tongue reconstruction after partial or hemiglossectomy: technical note and case report.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026Article
- Reconstruction of Sub-Total and Total Glossectomy Defects: An Arduous Challenge.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2023Article
- Unusual anomaly of the radial artery encountered during the elevation of a radial forearm free flap: a case report.Archives of craniofacial surgery · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reconstructive surgery in the management of head and neck cancer has evolved to include structure-specific approaches in which organ-specific treatment algorithms help optimize outcomes. Tongue cancer management and reconstruction are surgical challenges for which well-executed reconstructive plans should be completed promptly to avoid delaying any subsequently planned oncologic treatment. Crucial considerations in tongue cancer resection are the significant functional morbidity associated with surgical defects, particularly in terms of speech and swallowing, and the consequent negative impact on patients' quality of life. With the evolution of microsurgical techniques and the development of the perforator flap concept, flap options can be tailored to the characteristics of various tongue defects. This has allowed the implementation of pliable flaps that can help restore tongue mobility and yield subsequent functional outcomes. Using an evolutional framework, we present this series of reviews related to tongue reconstruction. The first part of the review summarizes flap options and flap-related factors, such as volume and tissue characteristics. Related functional aspects are also presented, including tongue mobility, speech, and swallowing, as well as ways to evaluate and optimize these outcomes.
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.