ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery2023
A Novel Risk Model for Predicting Dysphagia after Tongue Reconstruction: A Retrospective Multicenter Study in Japan.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors and prediction model of dysphagia in patients with recent small subcortical infarct.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Article
- Functional Outcomes after Subtotal/Total Glossectomy with Microsurgical Reconstruction: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study in Japan.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Observational
- Functional Outcomes of Tongue Reconstruction After Cancer Extirpation in Different Flaps: Pedicled Versus Free Flaps: A Systematic Review.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Swallowing and Speaking Evaluation After Resection and Reconstruction Versus Definite Radiochemotherapy for (Sub)total Tongue Cancer.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 15 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is no consensus on the postoperative outcomes of tongue reconstruction. Therefore, the authors developed a novel risk model for predicting dysphagia after tongue reconstruction.
methodsThis retrospective study was conducted by the Oral Pharyngeal Esophageal Operation and Reconstruction Analytical, or OPERA, group across 31 cancer centers and university hospitals in Japan. A total of 532 patients [390 (73.3%) men and 142 (26.7%) women; median age at surgery, 60 years (range, 15 to 88 years)] who were diagnosed with oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma and underwent tongue reconstruction following glossectomy between 2009 and 2013 were included. Independent risk factors were identified using univariate regression analysis and converted to a binary format for multivariate analysis. An integer value was assigned to each risk factor to calculate a total score capable of quantifying the risk of feeding tube dependence.
resultsOverall, 54 patients (10.2%) required a feeding tube at the time of evaluation. Predictive factors for feeding tube dependence were advanced age, lower American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, low body mass index, lower serum albumin, comorbid hypertension and diabetes, extended tongue defect, resection beyond the tongue, laryngeal suspension, postoperative radiation therapy, and no functional teeth. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, age greater than or equal to 58.5 years, postoperative radiation therapy, wider tongue defect, and body mass index less than 21.27 kg/m 2 earned 6, 4, 3, and 2 points, respectively, for a maximum total score of 15.
conclusionThe authors' risk model provides a mathematical tool for estimating the individual risk of postoperative feeding tube dependence before tongue reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.
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.