Reconstruction of partial hypopharyngeal defects following total laryngectomy: Pectoralis major myofascial versus myocutaneous flaps
Background: To date, few comparative studies exist for partial hypopharyngeal defect reconstruction following total laryngectomy. In the absence of objective evidence from comparative studies, the ideal flap choice remains controversial, leading to heterogeneity in institutional treatment protocols....
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Autor*in: |
Tonsbeek, Anthony M. [verfasserIn] Hundepool, Caroline A. [verfasserIn] Duraku, Liron S. [verfasserIn] Sewnaik, Aniel [verfasserIn] Mureau, Marc A.M. [verfasserIn] |
---|
Format: |
E-Artikel |
---|---|
Sprache: |
Englisch |
Erschienen: |
2023 |
---|
Schlagwörter: |
---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery - Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2006, 85, Seite 47-54 |
---|---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:85 ; pages:47-54 |
DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.bjps.2023.06.050 |
---|
Katalog-ID: |
ELV064730638 |
---|
LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | ELV064730638 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20230927092702.0 | ||
007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 230921s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.bjps.2023.06.050 |2 doi | |
035 | |a (DE-627)ELV064730638 | ||
035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S1748-6815(23)00378-9 | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q VZ |
084 | |a 44.65 |2 bkl | ||
100 | 1 | |a Tonsbeek, Anthony M. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
245 | 1 | 0 | |a Reconstruction of partial hypopharyngeal defects following total laryngectomy: Pectoralis major myofascial versus myocutaneous flaps |
264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
520 | |a Background: To date, few comparative studies exist for partial hypopharyngeal defect reconstruction following total laryngectomy. In the absence of objective evidence from comparative studies, the ideal flap choice remains controversial, leading to heterogeneity in institutional treatment protocols. Comparative studies between different reconstructive techniques are required. Therefore, this study compared postoperative outcomes of pectoralis major myocutaneous (PMMC) and myofascial (PMMF) flaps.Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed between 2000 and 2022, which included all consecutive patients who underwent a PMMC or PMMF flap reconstruction following total laryngectomy and partial hypopharyngectomy. Primary outcomes were suture line leakages (conservative management), fistulas (surgical management), and strictures. Secondary outcomes included flap failure, donor-site morbidity, and the start of oral intake.Results: In total, 122 patients were included (109 PMMC and 13 PMMF flap reconstructions). The incidence of suture line leakage was significantly higher (p = 0.007) after PMMC flaps (57%) compared with PMMF flaps (15%). Between PMMC and PMMF flaps, fistula (19% vs. 0%) and stricture rates (22% vs. 15%) did not differ significantly. No differences in flap failure, donor-site morbidity, or start of oral intake were observed.Conclusions: PMMF flaps have inherent advantages (e.g., reduced bulk, increased pliability) over conventional PMMC flaps and have non-inferior results compared to the latter in terms of postoperative complications. Although the final choice for reconstruction should be patient-tailored, a PMMF flap can be considered a reliable primary choice that is feasible in most patients. | ||
650 | 4 | |a Head and neck cancer | |
650 | 4 | |a Reconstruction | |
650 | 4 | |a Pectoralis major flap | |
650 | 4 | |a Postoperative complications | |
700 | 1 | |a Hundepool, Caroline A. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Duraku, Liron S. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Sewnaik, Aniel |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Mureau, Marc A.M. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery |d Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2006 |g 85, Seite 47-54 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)504862758 |w (DE-600)2214150-9 |w (DE-576)251918033 |x 1878-0539 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:85 |g pages:47-54 |
912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_32 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_90 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_100 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_101 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_187 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_224 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_370 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_702 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2001 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2004 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2005 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2007 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2008 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2009 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2010 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2011 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2015 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2020 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2021 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2025 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2026 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2027 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2034 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2044 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2048 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2049 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2050 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2055 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2056 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2059 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2061 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2064 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2068 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2088 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2106 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2110 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2111 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2112 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2122 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2129 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2143 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2152 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2153 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2190 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2232 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2336 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2470 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2507 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4035 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4242 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4251 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4326 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4333 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4334 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4393 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
936 | b | k | |a 44.65 |j Chirurgie |q VZ |
951 | |a AR | ||
952 | |d 85 |h 47-54 |
author_variant |
a m t am amt c a h ca cah l s d ls lsd a s as m a m ma mam |
---|---|
matchkey_str |
article:18780539:2023----::eosrcinfatahppaygadfcsolwnttlaygcoyetrlsaom |
hierarchy_sort_str |
2023 |
bklnumber |
44.65 |
publishDate |
2023 |
allfields |
10.1016/j.bjps.2023.06.050 doi (DE-627)ELV064730638 (ELSEVIER)S1748-6815(23)00378-9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 VZ 44.65 bkl Tonsbeek, Anthony M. verfasserin aut Reconstruction of partial hypopharyngeal defects following total laryngectomy: Pectoralis major myofascial versus myocutaneous flaps 2023 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: To date, few comparative studies exist for partial hypopharyngeal defect reconstruction following total laryngectomy. In the absence of objective evidence from comparative studies, the ideal flap choice remains controversial, leading to heterogeneity in institutional treatment protocols. Comparative studies between different reconstructive techniques are required. Therefore, this study compared postoperative outcomes of pectoralis major myocutaneous (PMMC) and myofascial (PMMF) flaps.Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed between 2000 and 2022, which included all consecutive patients who underwent a PMMC or PMMF flap reconstruction following total laryngectomy and partial hypopharyngectomy. Primary outcomes were suture line leakages (conservative management), fistulas (surgical management), and strictures. Secondary outcomes included flap failure, donor-site morbidity, and the start of oral intake.Results: In total, 122 patients were included (109 PMMC and 13 PMMF flap reconstructions). The incidence of suture line leakage was significantly higher (p = 0.007) after PMMC flaps (57%) compared with PMMF flaps (15%). Between PMMC and PMMF flaps, fistula (19% vs. 0%) and stricture rates (22% vs. 15%) did not differ significantly. No differences in flap failure, donor-site morbidity, or start of oral intake were observed.Conclusions: PMMF flaps have inherent advantages (e.g., reduced bulk, increased pliability) over conventional PMMC flaps and have non-inferior results compared to the latter in terms of postoperative complications. Although the final choice for reconstruction should be patient-tailored, a PMMF flap can be considered a reliable primary choice that is feasible in most patients. Head and neck cancer Reconstruction Pectoralis major flap Postoperative complications Hundepool, Caroline A. verfasserin aut Duraku, Liron S. verfasserin aut Sewnaik, Aniel verfasserin aut Mureau, Marc A.M. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2006 85, Seite 47-54 Online-Ressource (DE-627)504862758 (DE-600)2214150-9 (DE-576)251918033 1878-0539 nnns volume:85 pages:47-54 GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 44.65 Chirurgie VZ AR 85 47-54 |
spelling |
10.1016/j.bjps.2023.06.050 doi (DE-627)ELV064730638 (ELSEVIER)S1748-6815(23)00378-9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 VZ 44.65 bkl Tonsbeek, Anthony M. verfasserin aut Reconstruction of partial hypopharyngeal defects following total laryngectomy: Pectoralis major myofascial versus myocutaneous flaps 2023 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: To date, few comparative studies exist for partial hypopharyngeal defect reconstruction following total laryngectomy. In the absence of objective evidence from comparative studies, the ideal flap choice remains controversial, leading to heterogeneity in institutional treatment protocols. Comparative studies between different reconstructive techniques are required. Therefore, this study compared postoperative outcomes of pectoralis major myocutaneous (PMMC) and myofascial (PMMF) flaps.Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed between 2000 and 2022, which included all consecutive patients who underwent a PMMC or PMMF flap reconstruction following total laryngectomy and partial hypopharyngectomy. Primary outcomes were suture line leakages (conservative management), fistulas (surgical management), and strictures. Secondary outcomes included flap failure, donor-site morbidity, and the start of oral intake.Results: In total, 122 patients were included (109 PMMC and 13 PMMF flap reconstructions). The incidence of suture line leakage was significantly higher (p = 0.007) after PMMC flaps (57%) compared with PMMF flaps (15%). Between PMMC and PMMF flaps, fistula (19% vs. 0%) and stricture rates (22% vs. 15%) did not differ significantly. No differences in flap failure, donor-site morbidity, or start of oral intake were observed.Conclusions: PMMF flaps have inherent advantages (e.g., reduced bulk, increased pliability) over conventional PMMC flaps and have non-inferior results compared to the latter in terms of postoperative complications. Although the final choice for reconstruction should be patient-tailored, a PMMF flap can be considered a reliable primary choice that is feasible in most patients. Head and neck cancer Reconstruction Pectoralis major flap Postoperative complications Hundepool, Caroline A. verfasserin aut Duraku, Liron S. verfasserin aut Sewnaik, Aniel verfasserin aut Mureau, Marc A.M. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2006 85, Seite 47-54 Online-Ressource (DE-627)504862758 (DE-600)2214150-9 (DE-576)251918033 1878-0539 nnns volume:85 pages:47-54 GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 44.65 Chirurgie VZ AR 85 47-54 |
allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.bjps.2023.06.050 doi (DE-627)ELV064730638 (ELSEVIER)S1748-6815(23)00378-9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 VZ 44.65 bkl Tonsbeek, Anthony M. verfasserin aut Reconstruction of partial hypopharyngeal defects following total laryngectomy: Pectoralis major myofascial versus myocutaneous flaps 2023 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: To date, few comparative studies exist for partial hypopharyngeal defect reconstruction following total laryngectomy. In the absence of objective evidence from comparative studies, the ideal flap choice remains controversial, leading to heterogeneity in institutional treatment protocols. Comparative studies between different reconstructive techniques are required. Therefore, this study compared postoperative outcomes of pectoralis major myocutaneous (PMMC) and myofascial (PMMF) flaps.Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed between 2000 and 2022, which included all consecutive patients who underwent a PMMC or PMMF flap reconstruction following total laryngectomy and partial hypopharyngectomy. Primary outcomes were suture line leakages (conservative management), fistulas (surgical management), and strictures. Secondary outcomes included flap failure, donor-site morbidity, and the start of oral intake.Results: In total, 122 patients were included (109 PMMC and 13 PMMF flap reconstructions). The incidence of suture line leakage was significantly higher (p = 0.007) after PMMC flaps (57%) compared with PMMF flaps (15%). Between PMMC and PMMF flaps, fistula (19% vs. 0%) and stricture rates (22% vs. 15%) did not differ significantly. No differences in flap failure, donor-site morbidity, or start of oral intake were observed.Conclusions: PMMF flaps have inherent advantages (e.g., reduced bulk, increased pliability) over conventional PMMC flaps and have non-inferior results compared to the latter in terms of postoperative complications. Although the final choice for reconstruction should be patient-tailored, a PMMF flap can be considered a reliable primary choice that is feasible in most patients. Head and neck cancer Reconstruction Pectoralis major flap Postoperative complications Hundepool, Caroline A. verfasserin aut Duraku, Liron S. verfasserin aut Sewnaik, Aniel verfasserin aut Mureau, Marc A.M. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2006 85, Seite 47-54 Online-Ressource (DE-627)504862758 (DE-600)2214150-9 (DE-576)251918033 1878-0539 nnns volume:85 pages:47-54 GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 44.65 Chirurgie VZ AR 85 47-54 |
allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.bjps.2023.06.050 doi (DE-627)ELV064730638 (ELSEVIER)S1748-6815(23)00378-9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 VZ 44.65 bkl Tonsbeek, Anthony M. verfasserin aut Reconstruction of partial hypopharyngeal defects following total laryngectomy: Pectoralis major myofascial versus myocutaneous flaps 2023 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: To date, few comparative studies exist for partial hypopharyngeal defect reconstruction following total laryngectomy. In the absence of objective evidence from comparative studies, the ideal flap choice remains controversial, leading to heterogeneity in institutional treatment protocols. Comparative studies between different reconstructive techniques are required. Therefore, this study compared postoperative outcomes of pectoralis major myocutaneous (PMMC) and myofascial (PMMF) flaps.Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed between 2000 and 2022, which included all consecutive patients who underwent a PMMC or PMMF flap reconstruction following total laryngectomy and partial hypopharyngectomy. Primary outcomes were suture line leakages (conservative management), fistulas (surgical management), and strictures. Secondary outcomes included flap failure, donor-site morbidity, and the start of oral intake.Results: In total, 122 patients were included (109 PMMC and 13 PMMF flap reconstructions). The incidence of suture line leakage was significantly higher (p = 0.007) after PMMC flaps (57%) compared with PMMF flaps (15%). Between PMMC and PMMF flaps, fistula (19% vs. 0%) and stricture rates (22% vs. 15%) did not differ significantly. No differences in flap failure, donor-site morbidity, or start of oral intake were observed.Conclusions: PMMF flaps have inherent advantages (e.g., reduced bulk, increased pliability) over conventional PMMC flaps and have non-inferior results compared to the latter in terms of postoperative complications. Although the final choice for reconstruction should be patient-tailored, a PMMF flap can be considered a reliable primary choice that is feasible in most patients. Head and neck cancer Reconstruction Pectoralis major flap Postoperative complications Hundepool, Caroline A. verfasserin aut Duraku, Liron S. verfasserin aut Sewnaik, Aniel verfasserin aut Mureau, Marc A.M. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2006 85, Seite 47-54 Online-Ressource (DE-627)504862758 (DE-600)2214150-9 (DE-576)251918033 1878-0539 nnns volume:85 pages:47-54 GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 44.65 Chirurgie VZ AR 85 47-54 |
allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.bjps.2023.06.050 doi (DE-627)ELV064730638 (ELSEVIER)S1748-6815(23)00378-9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 VZ 44.65 bkl Tonsbeek, Anthony M. verfasserin aut Reconstruction of partial hypopharyngeal defects following total laryngectomy: Pectoralis major myofascial versus myocutaneous flaps 2023 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: To date, few comparative studies exist for partial hypopharyngeal defect reconstruction following total laryngectomy. In the absence of objective evidence from comparative studies, the ideal flap choice remains controversial, leading to heterogeneity in institutional treatment protocols. Comparative studies between different reconstructive techniques are required. Therefore, this study compared postoperative outcomes of pectoralis major myocutaneous (PMMC) and myofascial (PMMF) flaps.Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed between 2000 and 2022, which included all consecutive patients who underwent a PMMC or PMMF flap reconstruction following total laryngectomy and partial hypopharyngectomy. Primary outcomes were suture line leakages (conservative management), fistulas (surgical management), and strictures. Secondary outcomes included flap failure, donor-site morbidity, and the start of oral intake.Results: In total, 122 patients were included (109 PMMC and 13 PMMF flap reconstructions). The incidence of suture line leakage was significantly higher (p = 0.007) after PMMC flaps (57%) compared with PMMF flaps (15%). Between PMMC and PMMF flaps, fistula (19% vs. 0%) and stricture rates (22% vs. 15%) did not differ significantly. No differences in flap failure, donor-site morbidity, or start of oral intake were observed.Conclusions: PMMF flaps have inherent advantages (e.g., reduced bulk, increased pliability) over conventional PMMC flaps and have non-inferior results compared to the latter in terms of postoperative complications. Although the final choice for reconstruction should be patient-tailored, a PMMF flap can be considered a reliable primary choice that is feasible in most patients. Head and neck cancer Reconstruction Pectoralis major flap Postoperative complications Hundepool, Caroline A. verfasserin aut Duraku, Liron S. verfasserin aut Sewnaik, Aniel verfasserin aut Mureau, Marc A.M. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2006 85, Seite 47-54 Online-Ressource (DE-627)504862758 (DE-600)2214150-9 (DE-576)251918033 1878-0539 nnns volume:85 pages:47-54 GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 44.65 Chirurgie VZ AR 85 47-54 |
language |
English |
source |
Enthalten in Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery 85, Seite 47-54 volume:85 pages:47-54 |
sourceStr |
Enthalten in Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery 85, Seite 47-54 volume:85 pages:47-54 |
format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
bklname |
Chirurgie |
institution |
findex.gbv.de |
topic_facet |
Head and neck cancer Reconstruction Pectoralis major flap Postoperative complications |
dewey-raw |
610 |
isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
container_title |
Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery |
authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Tonsbeek, Anthony M. @@aut@@ Hundepool, Caroline A. @@aut@@ Duraku, Liron S. @@aut@@ Sewnaik, Aniel @@aut@@ Mureau, Marc A.M. @@aut@@ |
publishDateDaySort_date |
2023-01-01T00:00:00Z |
hierarchy_top_id |
504862758 |
dewey-sort |
3610 |
id |
ELV064730638 |
language_de |
englisch |
fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV064730638</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230927092702.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230921s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.bjps.2023.06.050</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV064730638</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S1748-6815(23)00378-9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.65</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tonsbeek, Anthony M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Reconstruction of partial hypopharyngeal defects following total laryngectomy: Pectoralis major myofascial versus myocutaneous flaps</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: To date, few comparative studies exist for partial hypopharyngeal defect reconstruction following total laryngectomy. In the absence of objective evidence from comparative studies, the ideal flap choice remains controversial, leading to heterogeneity in institutional treatment protocols. Comparative studies between different reconstructive techniques are required. Therefore, this study compared postoperative outcomes of pectoralis major myocutaneous (PMMC) and myofascial (PMMF) flaps.Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed between 2000 and 2022, which included all consecutive patients who underwent a PMMC or PMMF flap reconstruction following total laryngectomy and partial hypopharyngectomy. Primary outcomes were suture line leakages (conservative management), fistulas (surgical management), and strictures. Secondary outcomes included flap failure, donor-site morbidity, and the start of oral intake.Results: In total, 122 patients were included (109 PMMC and 13 PMMF flap reconstructions). The incidence of suture line leakage was significantly higher (p = 0.007) after PMMC flaps (57%) compared with PMMF flaps (15%). Between PMMC and PMMF flaps, fistula (19% vs. 0%) and stricture rates (22% vs. 15%) did not differ significantly. No differences in flap failure, donor-site morbidity, or start of oral intake were observed.Conclusions: PMMF flaps have inherent advantages (e.g., reduced bulk, increased pliability) over conventional PMMC flaps and have non-inferior results compared to the latter in terms of postoperative complications. Although the final choice for reconstruction should be patient-tailored, a PMMF flap can be considered a reliable primary choice that is feasible in most patients.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Head and neck cancer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Reconstruction</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pectoralis major flap</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Postoperative complications</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hundepool, Caroline A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Duraku, Liron S.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sewnaik, Aniel</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mureau, Marc A.M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery</subfield><subfield code="d">Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2006</subfield><subfield code="g">85, Seite 47-54</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)504862758</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2214150-9</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)251918033</subfield><subfield code="x">1878-0539</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:85</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:47-54</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2106</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4393</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.65</subfield><subfield code="j">Chirurgie</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">85</subfield><subfield code="h">47-54</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
author |
Tonsbeek, Anthony M. |
spellingShingle |
Tonsbeek, Anthony M. ddc 610 bkl 44.65 misc Head and neck cancer misc Reconstruction misc Pectoralis major flap misc Postoperative complications Reconstruction of partial hypopharyngeal defects following total laryngectomy: Pectoralis major myofascial versus myocutaneous flaps |
authorStr |
Tonsbeek, Anthony M. |
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)504862758 |
format |
electronic Article |
dewey-ones |
610 - Medicine & health |
delete_txt_mv |
keep |
author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut |
collection |
elsevier |
remote_str |
true |
illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
issn |
1878-0539 |
topic_title |
610 VZ 44.65 bkl Reconstruction of partial hypopharyngeal defects following total laryngectomy: Pectoralis major myofascial versus myocutaneous flaps Head and neck cancer Reconstruction Pectoralis major flap Postoperative complications |
topic |
ddc 610 bkl 44.65 misc Head and neck cancer misc Reconstruction misc Pectoralis major flap misc Postoperative complications |
topic_unstemmed |
ddc 610 bkl 44.65 misc Head and neck cancer misc Reconstruction misc Pectoralis major flap misc Postoperative complications |
topic_browse |
ddc 610 bkl 44.65 misc Head and neck cancer misc Reconstruction misc Pectoralis major flap misc Postoperative complications |
format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
hierarchy_parent_title |
Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery |
hierarchy_parent_id |
504862758 |
dewey-tens |
610 - Medicine & health |
hierarchy_top_title |
Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery |
isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)504862758 (DE-600)2214150-9 (DE-576)251918033 |
title |
Reconstruction of partial hypopharyngeal defects following total laryngectomy: Pectoralis major myofascial versus myocutaneous flaps |
ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV064730638 (ELSEVIER)S1748-6815(23)00378-9 |
title_full |
Reconstruction of partial hypopharyngeal defects following total laryngectomy: Pectoralis major myofascial versus myocutaneous flaps |
author_sort |
Tonsbeek, Anthony M. |
journal |
Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery |
journalStr |
Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery |
lang_code |
eng |
isOA_bool |
false |
dewey-hundreds |
600 - Technology |
recordtype |
marc |
publishDateSort |
2023 |
contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
container_start_page |
47 |
author_browse |
Tonsbeek, Anthony M. Hundepool, Caroline A. Duraku, Liron S. Sewnaik, Aniel Mureau, Marc A.M. |
container_volume |
85 |
class |
610 VZ 44.65 bkl |
format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
author-letter |
Tonsbeek, Anthony M. |
doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.bjps.2023.06.050 |
dewey-full |
610 |
author2-role |
verfasserin |
title_sort |
reconstruction of partial hypopharyngeal defects following total laryngectomy: pectoralis major myofascial versus myocutaneous flaps |
title_auth |
Reconstruction of partial hypopharyngeal defects following total laryngectomy: Pectoralis major myofascial versus myocutaneous flaps |
abstract |
Background: To date, few comparative studies exist for partial hypopharyngeal defect reconstruction following total laryngectomy. In the absence of objective evidence from comparative studies, the ideal flap choice remains controversial, leading to heterogeneity in institutional treatment protocols. Comparative studies between different reconstructive techniques are required. Therefore, this study compared postoperative outcomes of pectoralis major myocutaneous (PMMC) and myofascial (PMMF) flaps.Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed between 2000 and 2022, which included all consecutive patients who underwent a PMMC or PMMF flap reconstruction following total laryngectomy and partial hypopharyngectomy. Primary outcomes were suture line leakages (conservative management), fistulas (surgical management), and strictures. Secondary outcomes included flap failure, donor-site morbidity, and the start of oral intake.Results: In total, 122 patients were included (109 PMMC and 13 PMMF flap reconstructions). The incidence of suture line leakage was significantly higher (p = 0.007) after PMMC flaps (57%) compared with PMMF flaps (15%). Between PMMC and PMMF flaps, fistula (19% vs. 0%) and stricture rates (22% vs. 15%) did not differ significantly. No differences in flap failure, donor-site morbidity, or start of oral intake were observed.Conclusions: PMMF flaps have inherent advantages (e.g., reduced bulk, increased pliability) over conventional PMMC flaps and have non-inferior results compared to the latter in terms of postoperative complications. Although the final choice for reconstruction should be patient-tailored, a PMMF flap can be considered a reliable primary choice that is feasible in most patients. |
abstractGer |
Background: To date, few comparative studies exist for partial hypopharyngeal defect reconstruction following total laryngectomy. In the absence of objective evidence from comparative studies, the ideal flap choice remains controversial, leading to heterogeneity in institutional treatment protocols. Comparative studies between different reconstructive techniques are required. Therefore, this study compared postoperative outcomes of pectoralis major myocutaneous (PMMC) and myofascial (PMMF) flaps.Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed between 2000 and 2022, which included all consecutive patients who underwent a PMMC or PMMF flap reconstruction following total laryngectomy and partial hypopharyngectomy. Primary outcomes were suture line leakages (conservative management), fistulas (surgical management), and strictures. Secondary outcomes included flap failure, donor-site morbidity, and the start of oral intake.Results: In total, 122 patients were included (109 PMMC and 13 PMMF flap reconstructions). The incidence of suture line leakage was significantly higher (p = 0.007) after PMMC flaps (57%) compared with PMMF flaps (15%). Between PMMC and PMMF flaps, fistula (19% vs. 0%) and stricture rates (22% vs. 15%) did not differ significantly. No differences in flap failure, donor-site morbidity, or start of oral intake were observed.Conclusions: PMMF flaps have inherent advantages (e.g., reduced bulk, increased pliability) over conventional PMMC flaps and have non-inferior results compared to the latter in terms of postoperative complications. Although the final choice for reconstruction should be patient-tailored, a PMMF flap can be considered a reliable primary choice that is feasible in most patients. |
abstract_unstemmed |
Background: To date, few comparative studies exist for partial hypopharyngeal defect reconstruction following total laryngectomy. In the absence of objective evidence from comparative studies, the ideal flap choice remains controversial, leading to heterogeneity in institutional treatment protocols. Comparative studies between different reconstructive techniques are required. Therefore, this study compared postoperative outcomes of pectoralis major myocutaneous (PMMC) and myofascial (PMMF) flaps.Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed between 2000 and 2022, which included all consecutive patients who underwent a PMMC or PMMF flap reconstruction following total laryngectomy and partial hypopharyngectomy. Primary outcomes were suture line leakages (conservative management), fistulas (surgical management), and strictures. Secondary outcomes included flap failure, donor-site morbidity, and the start of oral intake.Results: In total, 122 patients were included (109 PMMC and 13 PMMF flap reconstructions). The incidence of suture line leakage was significantly higher (p = 0.007) after PMMC flaps (57%) compared with PMMF flaps (15%). Between PMMC and PMMF flaps, fistula (19% vs. 0%) and stricture rates (22% vs. 15%) did not differ significantly. No differences in flap failure, donor-site morbidity, or start of oral intake were observed.Conclusions: PMMF flaps have inherent advantages (e.g., reduced bulk, increased pliability) over conventional PMMC flaps and have non-inferior results compared to the latter in terms of postoperative complications. Although the final choice for reconstruction should be patient-tailored, a PMMF flap can be considered a reliable primary choice that is feasible in most patients. |
collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 |
title_short |
Reconstruction of partial hypopharyngeal defects following total laryngectomy: Pectoralis major myofascial versus myocutaneous flaps |
remote_bool |
true |
author2 |
Hundepool, Caroline A. Duraku, Liron S. Sewnaik, Aniel Mureau, Marc A.M. |
author2Str |
Hundepool, Caroline A. Duraku, Liron S. Sewnaik, Aniel Mureau, Marc A.M. |
ppnlink |
504862758 |
mediatype_str_mv |
c |
isOA_txt |
false |
hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
doi_str |
10.1016/j.bjps.2023.06.050 |
up_date |
2024-07-06T20:39:05.065Z |
_version_ |
1803863557476974592 |
fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV064730638</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230927092702.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230921s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.bjps.2023.06.050</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV064730638</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S1748-6815(23)00378-9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.65</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tonsbeek, Anthony M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Reconstruction of partial hypopharyngeal defects following total laryngectomy: Pectoralis major myofascial versus myocutaneous flaps</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: To date, few comparative studies exist for partial hypopharyngeal defect reconstruction following total laryngectomy. In the absence of objective evidence from comparative studies, the ideal flap choice remains controversial, leading to heterogeneity in institutional treatment protocols. Comparative studies between different reconstructive techniques are required. Therefore, this study compared postoperative outcomes of pectoralis major myocutaneous (PMMC) and myofascial (PMMF) flaps.Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed between 2000 and 2022, which included all consecutive patients who underwent a PMMC or PMMF flap reconstruction following total laryngectomy and partial hypopharyngectomy. Primary outcomes were suture line leakages (conservative management), fistulas (surgical management), and strictures. Secondary outcomes included flap failure, donor-site morbidity, and the start of oral intake.Results: In total, 122 patients were included (109 PMMC and 13 PMMF flap reconstructions). The incidence of suture line leakage was significantly higher (p = 0.007) after PMMC flaps (57%) compared with PMMF flaps (15%). Between PMMC and PMMF flaps, fistula (19% vs. 0%) and stricture rates (22% vs. 15%) did not differ significantly. No differences in flap failure, donor-site morbidity, or start of oral intake were observed.Conclusions: PMMF flaps have inherent advantages (e.g., reduced bulk, increased pliability) over conventional PMMC flaps and have non-inferior results compared to the latter in terms of postoperative complications. Although the final choice for reconstruction should be patient-tailored, a PMMF flap can be considered a reliable primary choice that is feasible in most patients.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Head and neck cancer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Reconstruction</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pectoralis major flap</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Postoperative complications</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hundepool, Caroline A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Duraku, Liron S.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sewnaik, Aniel</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mureau, Marc A.M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery</subfield><subfield code="d">Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2006</subfield><subfield code="g">85, Seite 47-54</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)504862758</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2214150-9</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)251918033</subfield><subfield code="x">1878-0539</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:85</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:47-54</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2106</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4393</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.65</subfield><subfield code="j">Chirurgie</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">85</subfield><subfield code="h">47-54</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
score |
7.397932 |