ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Supracricoid partial laryngectomy and reconstruction of the anterior epiglottic space flap: a new surgical approach for supracricoid partial laryngectomy.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To introduce a novel surgical technique for partial laryngectomy involving the reconstruction of the epiglottic space flap (ESFR) on the cricoid cartilage, and to compare its clinical efficacy and functional outcomes with those of cricohyoidoepiglottopexy (CHEP) in the treatment of laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma, exploring the feasibility and clinical significance of this new surgical approach. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 57 patients with laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma who were treated between January 2014 and January 2020. The inclusion criteria were suitability for CHEP according to the 2002 UICC criteria and the absence of anterior epiglottic space invasion. Postoperative complications, glottic area status, recurrence, and survival were compared between the CHEP group (n=22) and the ESFR group (n=35). Results: Follow-up (44-116 months; 94.7% rate) revealed similar 3-year (CHEP: 90.6%; ESFR: 91.5%; P>0.05) and 5-year (CHEP: 83.3%; ESFR: 89.3%; P>0.05) cumulative survival. ESFR significantly reduced extubation time (ESFR: 8 ± 2.5 days; CHEP: 18 ± 3.1 days; P<0.01) and swallowing errors (ESFR: 5.7%; CHEP: 22.7%; P<0.05). No significant differences were observed in pharyngeal fistula, laryngeal stenosis, or recurrence rates (P>0.05). Conclusion: Compared to CHEP, ESFR technique demonstrates equivalent surgical eligibility criteria and oncological resection margins. However, ESFR uniquely preserves the anatomical integrity of the laryngeal framework, enabling superior postoperative functional outcomes through expedited restoration of phonatory and deglutitive capacities while maintaining long-term laryngeal preservation.
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.