{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023091725465041693, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006414368184733804, 'mean_word_length': 5.666666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Literature Review of Criteria for Defining Recipient-Site Infection after Oral Oncologic Surgery with Simultaneous Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND
The lack of uniformity of criteria for defining recipient-site infection after oral oncologic surgery with simultaneous reconstruction is problematic despite numerous studies on this issue. This study aimed to investigate the difference in the criteria for defining recipient-site infection after oral oncologic surgery with reconstruction.


METHODS
A Medline search was performed via PUBMED using the following combinations of key terms that were tagged in the title, abstract, or both: "surgical site infection-head neck," "surgical site infection-oral cancer," "antibiotic prophylaxis-head neck," and "surgical site infection-oral carcinoma." Search results were filtered between 2005 and 2017. Articles in which there was no mention of the criteria for definition of surgical-site infection were excluded.


RESULTS
The number of articles that met the inclusion criteria was 24. The lack of uniformity in the criteria for defining recipient-site infection in each article appeared to be attributable mainly to differences in whether an orocutaneous fistula and superficial incisional infection were regarded as recipient-site infection.


CONCLUSION
Reconsideration of the categorization of orocutaneous fistula as infection, regardless of the etiology, and differentiation of superficial and deep incisional infections are necessary for correct assessment of recipient-site infection in oral oncologic surgery.