ArticleOTO open
Intermediate Volume Glossectomy Defects Reconstruction: Flap Versus Primary Closure.
Article in OTO open. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes between flap reconstruction and primary closure following intermediate-volume (partial to hemi-) glossectomy in patients with oral tongue carcinoma. Study Design: Retro-prospective cross-sectional study. Setting: Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. Methods: Seventy patients undergoing partial to hemi-glossectomy were included and grouped by reconstruction method (flap reconstruction vs primary closure). QoL was assessed at 6 to 12 months posttreatment using the EORTC QLQ-H&N35 questionnaire. Multivariable linear regression was performed adjusting for age, stage group, neck dissection, and adjuvant therapy. Effect sizes were calculated to evaluate clinical relevance. Results: Baseline demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics were comparable between groups. Operative time was significantly longer in the flap group. Flap reconstruction was associated with significantly better QoL, including lower overall HN35 scores (40.89 ± 3.39 vs 44.74 ± 5.26; Conclusion: Flap reconstruction was associated with improved QoL at 6 to 12 months, particularly in swallowing and speech, but with longer operative time and higher wound complication rates. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings.
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.