Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37041953›Full record

ReviewJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2023

Secondary Reconstruction of Head and Neck Cancer Defects-Principles in its Practice.

Subramania Iyer, Janarthanan Ramu, Arjun Krishnadas

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Subramania IyerDepartment of Head & Neck Surgery, Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala India.ORCID 0000-0003-1440-4500
Janarthanan RamuDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala India.
Arjun KrishnadasDepartment of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala India.ORCID 0000-0002-9446-0336
Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Secondary reconstruction is requested by patients who have completed their head and neck cancer treatment. The reason for the request for reconstruction may be to improve the functional deficits, achieve aesthetic refinements or most commonly both. The article looks at various issues related to reconstruction in the secondary setting and suggesting the ways to approaching patients requesting secondary reconstruction. Discussion: While considering secondary reconstruction, various factors need to be considered. These include issues related to the disease, the treatment received as well as the patient's comorbid conditions. Aggressive disease and multiple recurrences should deter from undertaking complex reconstructions. Lack of tissue pliability resulting in a woody neck due to radiation makes dissection difficult and wound healing poor. The reconstructive requirements include release of contractures inside the mouth, reconstruction of the missing jaws, replacement of the missing volume of the tongue and correction of the incompetent angle of mouth. Goals of reconstruction should be prioritized by the surgical team. Free soft tissue or bone containing flaps would be provided ideal tissue to meet the reconstructive requirements in secondary reconstruction. However, several impediments could exist for their safe use. Release of contractures and provision of adequate soft tissue should be given priority and must be addressed before bony reconstruction is contemplated. Conclusion: Bony reconstruction of both mandible and maxilla is possible, with the former being more difficult to deliver good results due to the associated soft tissue fibrosis. Virtual surgical planning with the aid of Stereo lithographic models and planning software will improve the quality of bony reconstruction. Detailed counseling sessions involving patient and the family are essential before embarking on secondary reconstruction as the patient expectations and the surgical outcome may not be easy to match. However excellent improvement in function and appearance will be possible in many patients with appropriate reconstructive procedure.

Indexed as

Head and neck cancer defectsSalvage proceduresSecondary reconstructionVirtual surgical planning

Identifiers

PMID37041953
PMCPMC10082886
OpenAlexW4322754092

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.