ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2024
Application of supraclavicular island flap in oral and maxillofacial reconstruction.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several surgical modalities are available for maxillofacial reconstruction as locoregional or microvascular free flaps. PURPOSE: (a) Evaluate the reliability of the supraclavicular flap in cervico-orofacial region; (b) investigate the role of computed tomography angiography (CTA) in predicting the post-operative viability of the flap; (c) assess the speech, feeding, and esthetics after reconstruction using this flap.
methodsEleven patients included in this study underwent either conventional or delayed harvesting of the supraclavicular flap (SCF). All the patients had diagnostic computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the supraclavicular flap before the surgery.
resultsThe mean harvesting time of the flap was 45.45 ± 4.16 min. The average length of the flap was 22.64 ± 1.12 cm, whereas the mean width of the flap was 6.14 ± 1.14 cm. The flap survived in 9 patients, while two patients had complete flap loss. After the surgery, three patients complained of speech difficulties. Two patients had swallowing problems. After the surgery, three patients complained of speech difficulties. Two patients had swallowing problems. Only two patients complained of weakness in the donor site. None of the patients reported that the weakness or pain at the donor site affected their daily activities or quality of life.
conclusionThe pedicled SCF represents a safe and feasible option that can be used to reconstruct a wide array of maxillofacial oncologic defects. However, a study with a larger sample size is recommended to achieve more reliable clinical results for the modified delayed technique modification in terms of their effect on the survival of the supraclavicular flap.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38355871What 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.