Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37975025›Full record

ArticleCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2023

Reconstruction in Salvage Surgery for Head and Neck Cancers.

Nageswara R Noothanapati, Nisha R Akali, Rahul Buggaveeti, Deepak Balasubramanian, Jimmy Mathew, Subramania Iyer, Krishnakumar Thankappan

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nageswara R NoothanapatiDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, India.
Nisha R AkaliDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, India.
Rahul BuggaveetiDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, India.
Deepak BalasubramanianDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, India.
Jimmy MathewDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, India.
Subramania IyerDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, India.
Krishnakumar ThankappanDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5999-0422
Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Salvage surgery is the treatment option in recurrences and second primary tumors. This paper aimed to study the options and outcomes of reconstruction and the predictors of poor reconstructive outcomes in salvage surgery for head and neck cancers. Study Design: This is a retrospective study of all patients who underwent reconstructive flap surgery as part of salvage surgery for head and neck cancers between the years 2004 and 2017. Methods: The initial treatment may be single modality radiotherapy or surgery or multimodality with combinations of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. Any pathology that required surgical salvage was included. Any procedures done purely as reconstructive surgery were excluded. Predictor variables included demographical, clinical, and treatment factors. The outcome parameter was the occurrence of any flap-related complication or not. The complications and morbidity related to the procedures are reported. Results: Ninety-three patients underwent loco-regional flaps (LRF group), and 100 had free flaps (FF group). Pectoralis major flap was the commonest flap used in 68 patients (73.1%). Anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap was the commonest free flap and comprised 41% of the FF group. Any skin-related complication was seen in 35 patients (37.6%) and 41 (41%), respectively, in LRF and FF subsets. Any flap-related complication was seen in 16 patients (17.2%) and 29 patients (29%), respectively, in LRF and FF subsets. A summary measure "any one of the complications" was seen in 46 (49.5%) and 57 (57%), respectively, in LRF and FF subsets. Univariate and multivariate analysis for any flap-related complication identified no statistically significant predictor. Conclusions: Soft tissue flaps were preferred in salvage reconstruction, though the defects had a bony component. In the microvascular free flap reconstruction era, pectoralis major flap has shifted its role from a "workhorse flap" to a "salvage flap." About half of the patients develop some complications. Flap-related complications are also common. In salvage surgery, it is important that an appropriate flap is selected, suitable for the setting, according to the indications, neck, and patient conditions.

Indexed as

free flapshead and neck cancermorbidityoral cancersalvage surgery

Identifiers

PMID37975025
PMCPMC10638975
OpenAlexW4283023602

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.