ArticleThe Laryngoscope2026
A Longitudinal Assessment of Patient Satisfaction Following Head and Neck Free Flap Reconstruction.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Second or subsequent microvascular free flaps in head and neck reconstructive surgery: a narrative review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Recovery Phenotypes After Head-and-Neck Reconstructive Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Comparing Free-Flap and Pedicled-Flap Pathways.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Longitudinal Assessment of Patient Satisfaction Following Head and Neck Free Flap Reconstruction.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLong-term aesthetic outcomes following head and neck (HNC) microvascular free flap reconstruction are poorly understood. As patient survival improves for HNC, it is critical to understand the impact of surgical treatment upon aesthetic outcomes over the patient's life course.
methodsFour hundred and fifty-six web-based surveys were prospectively collected at a tertiary care center (June 2018-July 2024). Three FACE-Q scales were used to evaluate patient-reported outcomes: Satisfaction with Facial Appearance, Appearance-Related Psychosocial Distress, and Social Function scales. A retrospective chart review was conducted to collect demographic and comorbidity data.
resultsTwo hundred and forty-seven subjects (age: 64.65 ± 14.46) were divided into 3 cancer subsite groups: oral cavity (n = 146), cutaneous (n = 42), and other (n = 59). FACE-Q scores remained largely stable across postoperative time points, with no statistically significant difference between time intervals across subsites. Significant differences were found across subsites for facial satisfaction (p = 0.010): cutaneous, 30.1 ± 8.5, oral cavity, 27.5 ± 8.8, and other subsites, 25.7 ± 9.0; social function (p < 0.001): cutaneous 25.5 ± 6.1, oral cavity 21.6 ± 7.1, and other subsite 20.9 ± 6.9; and stress (p = 0.001): cutaneous, 13.6 ± 6.0, oral cavity, 16.3 ± 7.4, and other subsites, 17.7 ± 7.3.
conclusionThe findings suggest that patients who undergo head and neck microvascular reconstruction may be more resilient to aesthetic outcomes than previously anticipated, as they return to pre-operative baselines. Findings also reveal that reconstructive site is significantly related to postoperative aesthetic satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4:
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.