ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Reconstructive Options after Oncological Rhinectomy: State of the Art.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Clinical effects of expanded frontal flap and flip scar flap in repairing partial nasal defect].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe nose is a central component of the face, and it is fundamental to an individual's recognition and attractiveness. The aim of this study is to present a review of the last twenty years literature on reconstructive techniques after oncological rhinectomy.
methodsLiterature searches were conducted in the databases PubMed, Scopus, Medline and Google Scholar. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA)" for scoping review was followed.
resultsSeventeen articles regarding total rhinectomy reconstruction were finally identified in the English literature, with a total of 447 cases. The prostheses were the reconstructive choice in 213 (47.7%) patients, followed by local flaps in 172 (38.5%) and free flaps in 62 (13.8%). The forehead flap (FF) and the radial forearm free flap (RFFF) are the most frequently used flaps.
conclusionsThis study shows that both prosthetic and surgical reconstruction are very suitable solutions in terms of surgical and aesthetic outcomes for the patient.
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.