Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37269408›Full record

SynthesisEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2023

Mandibular reconstruction in head and neck cancer: which is the gold standard?

Gabriele Molteni, Luca Gazzini, Andrea Sacchetto, Riccardo Nocini, Lara Valentina Comini, Valerio Arietti, Luca Giovanni Locatello, Giuditta Mannelli

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Gabriele MolteniYoung Confederation of European ORL-HNS, Y-CEORL-HNS, Vienna, Austria.
Luca GazziniYoung Confederation of European ORL-HNS, Y-CEORL-HNS, Vienna, Austria.
Andrea SacchettoYoung Confederation of European ORL-HNS, Y-CEORL-HNS, Vienna, Austria. andrea.sacchetto89@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0272-6652
Riccardo NociniYoung Confederation of European ORL-HNS, Y-CEORL-HNS, Vienna, Austria.
Lara Valentina CominiYoung Confederation of European ORL-HNS, Y-CEORL-HNS, Vienna, Austria.
Valerio AriettiYoung Confederation of European ORL-HNS, Y-CEORL-HNS, Vienna, Austria.
Luca Giovanni LocatelloYoung Confederation of European ORL-HNS, Y-CEORL-HNS, Vienna, Austria.
Giuditta MannelliYoung Confederation of European ORL-HNS, Y-CEORL-HNS, Vienna, Austria.
University of Verona · ITUniversity of Florence · ITErnst & Young (United States) · USOspedale di Bolzano · ITOspedale Sant Antonio · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe aim of this study is to perform a systematic review to compare the outcomes of the different surgical options for mandibular reconstruction in head and neck cancer. MATERIAL AND

methods93 articles were selected. Four groups were identified: titanium plate without flaps, titanium plate covered by soft tissue flap, bone tissue flaps and double flaps. We compared patients' characteristics, site of mandibulectomy, type of reconstruction and complications.

results4697 patients were reported. The groups were not homogeneous regarding the type of defect and the treatment history. A significant difference in terms of post-operative complications was found between group 1 and group 2 (p < 0.00001), and between group 2 and group 3 (p < 0.00001). Total complications rate for group 4 was significantly higher when compared to group 3 (p < 0.00001), but no significant difference was found with group 2.

conclusionThese results suggest that mandibular reconstruction using a microvascular bone flap is the best surgical option in patients without significant comorbidities.

Indexed as

Free Tissue FlapsHead and Neck NeoplasmsMandibular ReconstructionPlastic Surgery ProceduresHumansRetrospective StudiesSurgical FlapsTitaniumTitaniumHead and neck cancerMandibular reconstructionMicrovascular free flapsOral cancerOral oncology

Identifiers

PMID37269408
OpenAlexW4379207215

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.