ArticleJournal of digital imaging2017
Automating Perforator Flap MRA and CTA Reporting.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simple Evaluation Method of Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery and its Perforators Using a Three-Dimensional Computer Graphics Software Viewtify.Journal of plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
- Computed Tomographic Angiography (CTA)-guided precision reconstruction in complex lower leg wounds.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- AI-based planning for DIEAP flap procedures: exploring foundation models for artery perforators analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Automatic detection of perforators for microsurgical reconstruction.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Article
- Preoperative cross-sectional mapping for deep inferior epigastric and profunda artery perforator flaps.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2019Review
- Automatic detection of perforator vessels using infrared thermography in reconstructive surgery.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2019Article
- A Review of Objective Measurement of Flap Volume in Reconstructive Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgical breast reconstruction after mastectomy requires precise perforator coordinates/dimensions, perforator course, and fat volume in a radiology report. Automatic perforator reporting software was implemented as an OsiriX Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) viewer plugin. For perforator analysis, the user identifies a reference point (e.g., umbilicus) and marks each perforating artery/vein bundle with multiple region of interest (ROI) points along its course beginning at the muscle-fat interface. Computations using these points and analysis of image data produce content for the report. Post-processing times were compared against conventional/manual methods using de-identified images of 26 patients with surgically confirmed accuracy of perforator locations and caliber. The time from loading source images to completion of report was measured. Significance of differences in mean processing times for this automated approach versus the conventional/manual approach was assessed using a paired t test. The mean conventional reporting time for our radiologists was 76 ± 27 min (median 65 min) compared with 25 ± 6 min (median 25 min) using our OsiriX plugin (p < 0.01). The conventional approach had three reports with transcription errors compared to none with the OsiriX plugin. Otherwise, the reports were similar. In conclusion, automated reporting of perforator magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) studies is faster compared with the standard, manual approach, and transcription errors which are eliminated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.