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

Gespeichert in:

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:	Head and neck cancer Reconstruction Pectoralis major flap Postoperative complications

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

Internformat


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

Indexfelder

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

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Reconstruction of partial hypopharyngeal defects following total laryngectomy: Pectoralis major myofascial versus myocutaneous flaps

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?