Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38791883›Full record

ReviewCancers2024

Reconstruction of Partial Hypopharyngeal Defects following Total Laryngectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Anthony M Tonsbeek, Roxy Leidelmeijer, Caroline A Hundepool, Liron S Duraku, Mark J W Van der Oest, Aniel Sewnaik, Marc A M Mureau

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Re-evaluating the role of pedicled pectoralis major flap in subtotal hypopharyngeal reconstruction.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 · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Anthony M TonsbeekDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9430-4878
Roxy LeidelmeijerDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Caroline A HundepoolDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Liron S DurakuDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mark J W Van der OestDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Aniel SewnaikDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marc A M MureauDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6941-7734

Funding

Erasmus MC Foundation: Reconstruction Fund NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVarious operative techniques exist to reconstruct partial hypopharyngeal defects following total laryngectomy. The current study aimed to investigate and compare complications and functional results following commonly used reconstructive techniques.

methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were performed using studies that investigated outcomes after the reconstruction of a partial hypopharyngeal defect. The outcomes of interest were fistulas, strictures, flap failure, swallowing function and postoperative speech.

resultsOf the 4035 studies identified, 23 were included in this review. Four common reconstructive techniques were reported, with a total of 794 patients: (1) pectoralis major myocutaneous and (2) myofascial flap, (3) anterolateral thigh free flap and (4) radial forearm free flap. Fistulas occurred significantly more often than pectoralis major myocutaneous flaps (34%, 95% CI 23-47%) compared with other flaps (

conclusionPectoralis myocutaneous flaps should not be the preferred method of reconstruction for most patients, considering their significantly higher rate of fistulas. In contrast, pectoralis major myofascial flaps yield promising results compared to free-flap reconstructions, warranting further investigation.

Indexed as

anterolateral thigh flapfasciocutaneousfunctional outcomeshead and neck cancerpectoralis major flappostoperative complicationsradial forearm flapreconstruction

Identifiers

PMID38791883
PMCPMC11119839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.