A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Iliac crest free flap versus fibula free flap for mandibular reconstruction: Cost-effectiveness analysis in a Chinese population. | LitMetric

Iliac crest free flap versus fibula free flap for mandibular reconstruction: Cost-effectiveness analysis in a Chinese population.

J Craniomaxillofac Surg

State Key Laboratory of Oral & Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education, Hubei Key Laboratory of Stomatology, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, China; Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Head Neck Oncology, School & Hosp

Published: September 2025


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Mandibular reconstruction is vital in oral and maxillofacial surgery to restore aesthetics and function after tumor resection or trauma. The iliac crest-free flap (ICFF) and fibula-free flap (FFF) are widely used, but their cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life (QoL) are debated. A retrospective study of 142 patients (2012-2018) compared ICFF and FFF, analyzing direct costs (surgical, medication, hospitalization) and indirect costs (surgery duration, hospital stay). QoL was assessed using the UW-QOL questionnaire, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. ICFF patients had shorter surgery times (370.47 ± 10.02 vs. 481.59 ± 115.77 min, P < 0.01) and lower hospitalization costs ($11,992.77 ± 2130.24vs.$14,294.74 ± 2976.95, P < 0.001). ICFF showed better QoL in appearance and emotional domains, while FFF performed slightly better in salivary function and swallowing. ICER analysis confirmed ICFF as more cost-effective, with superior QoL outcomes. ICFF is ideal for younger patients with moderate defects, offering shorter stays and improved mood-related QoL, whereas FFF is preferred for large defects. Tailored decisions based on defect type, age, and expected outcomes can optimize satisfaction and resource use.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2025.05.007DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

free flap
8
mandibular reconstruction
8
iliac crest
4
crest free
4
flap
4
flap versus
4
versus fibula
4
fibula free
4
flap mandibular
4
reconstruction cost-effectiveness
4

Similar Publications