MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1002/lary.31466

Медицинская библиотека · The Laryngoscope · 2024

Chimeric versus Multiple Flaps for Composite Oral Cavity Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Punjabi Ayesha, Araya Sthefano, Amadio Grace, Webster Theresa, Mutyala Sudeep, Wu Meagan, Zhao Huaquing, Roth Stephanie, Walchak Adam, Patel Sameer A

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

OBJECTIVES

Complex head and neck defects involving composite defects can be reconstructed using chimeric flaps or multiple flaps with separate anastomoses. Limited comparisons exist between chimeric and multiple flap reconstructions. We compare outcomes between chimeric and multiple flap reconstructions in oral cavity reconstruction.

DATA SOURCES: PubMed (NLM), Embase (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), and Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted, including English articles reporting outcomes of oral cavity reconstruction with either chimeric flaps or multiple flaps. Data extraction included patient characteristics, flap type, and outcomes such as flap survival, partial flap loss, operating room time, hospital length of stay, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Forty-seven articles comprising 1435 patients were included. Notably, 552 patients underwent multiple flaps, while 883 received chimeric flaps. Meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in flap survival between chimeric and multiple flap patients (98% vs. 99%, p = 0.198). Multiple flap patients had higher rates of operating room take-backs for anastomotic issues and longer hospital stays compared with chimeric flap patients. There were no significant differences in partial flap failure, resumption of diet and speech, need for subsequent flaps, fistula formation, or general complications.

CONCLUSION

This large-scale meta-analysis demonstrates equivalent flap survival between chimeric and multiple flaps in the reconstruction of composite oral cavity defects. Both approaches appear to be safe and acceptable, with comparable outcomes in terms of diet and speech resumption, rates of fistulization, and general postoperative complications. Multiple flap patients had higher rates of operating room take-backs and longer hospital stays.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 134:4196-4202, 2024.

Для цитирования: Punjabi Ayesha, Araya Sthefano, Amadio Grace, Webster Theresa, Mutyala Sudeep, Wu Meagan, Zhao Huaquing, Roth Stephanie, Walchak Adam, Patel Sameer A. Chimeric versus Multiple Flaps for Composite Oral Cavity Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. The Laryngoscope. 2024. DOI: 10.1002/lary.31466.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.