Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42326894›Full record

ArticleOTO open

Intermediate Volume Glossectomy Defects Reconstruction: Flap Versus Primary Closure.

Jidapa Pradit, Wisarut Samuckkeethum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

2 authors.

Jidapa PraditDepartment of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine Chulalongkorn University Bangkok Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4392-3277
Wisarut SamuckkeethumDepartment of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine Chulalongkorn University Bangkok Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9737-3027

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

flap reconstructionhemi‐glossectomyintermediate volume glossectomypartial glossectomyprimary closure

Identifiers

PMID42326894
PMCPMC13281774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.