Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42115422›Full record

ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2026

Clinical outcomes of fibular and scapular free osseous flaps in head and neck reconstruction: a retrospective comparative study.

Vittorio Favero, Gabriele Sala, Francesca Mazzarella, Guido Bissolotti, Alessandra Ruaro, Stefano Taboni, Piergiorgio Gaudioso, Piero Nicolai, Marco Ferrari, Cesare Tiengo

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Vittorio Favero *Department of Neuroscience, Section of Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, Padova, 35128, Italy.
Gabriele Sala *Department of Neuroscience, Section of Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, Padova, 35128, Italy.
Francesca Mazzarella *Department of Neuroscience, Clinic of Plastic Surgery, University of Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, Padova, 35128, Italy. francescamazzarella2@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7132-3945
Guido BissolottiDepartment of Neuroscience, Section of Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, Padova, 35128, Italy.
Alessandra RuaroDepartment of Neuroscience, Section of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University of Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, Padova, 35128, Italy.
Stefano TaboniUnit of of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Azienda Ospedale-Università Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, Padova, 35128, Italy.
Piergiorgio GaudiosoUnit of of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Azienda Ospedale-Università Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, Padova, 35128, Italy.
Piero NicolaiDepartment of Neuroscience, Section of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University of Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, Padova, 35128, Italy.
Marco FerrariDepartment of Neuroscience, Section of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University of Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, Padova, 35128, Italy.
Cesare Tiengo *Department of Neuroscience, Clinic of Plastic Surgery, University of Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, Padova, 35128, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOsseous microvascular reconstruction of the head and neck following oncologic or osteoradionecrotic resection remains surgically challenging. The fibular free flap is the gold standard for mandibular reconstruction, whereas the scapular free flap has emerged as a viable alternative in selected scenarios.

methodsA retrospective comparative analysis was performed on 69 adults undergoing cervicofacial reconstruction with fibular (n = 37) or scapular (n = 32) osseous free flaps (2015-2025). Surgical, functional, and patient-reported outcomes (DASH, EFAS, SHI, MDADI, EORTC QLQ-H&N35, FACE-Q) were assessed.

resultsDemographics and clinical profiles were similar, though scapular recipients were older. Fibular flaps predominate in mandibular, scapular in maxillary reconstructions. Fibular reconstructions used more custom plates and had longer follow-up but exhibited higher donor-site complication (24.3%) and elective revision (62.2%) rates. PROMs were comparable; extensive scapular flaps caused mild upper limb function decline.

conclusionScapular flaps demonstrated lower donor-site complication rates and comparable functional and patient-reported outcomes in this cohort. These findings suggest that the scapular flap represents a valuable reconstructive alternative, particularly in patients in whom fibular harvest may be less suitable.

Indexed as

Bone TransplantationFibulaFree Tissue FlapsHead and Neck NeoplasmsPlastic Surgery ProceduresScapulaAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeFibular flapHead and neck oncologic surgeryMicrovascular reconstructionPatient-reported outcomesScapular flap

Identifiers

PMID42115422
PMCPMC13615079

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.