Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30610436›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2019

The adipofasciocutaneous gluteal fold perforator flap a versatile alternative choice for covering perineal defects.

G Koulaxouzidis, V Penna, H Bannasch, H P Neeff, P Manegold, F Aigner, C Witzel, M E Kreis, J Pratschke, G B Stark and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

G KoulaxouzidisPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany. georgios.koulaxouzidis@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5679-7686
V PennaDepartment of Plastic and Hand Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, im Breisgau, Germany.
H BannaschDepartment of Plastic and Hand Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, im Breisgau, Germany.
H P NeeffClinic for General and Visceral Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, im Breisgau, Germany.
P ManegoldClinic for General and Visceral Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, im Breisgau, Germany.
F AignerDepartment of Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany.
C WitzelPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany.
M E KreisDepartment of General, Visceral and Vascular Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Germany.
J PratschkeDepartment of Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany.
G B StarkDepartment of Plastic and Hand Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, im Breisgau, Germany.
F M LampertDepartment of Plastic and Hand Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, im Breisgau, Germany.
University of Freiburg · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimPerineal defects following the resection of anorectal malignancies are a reconstructive challenge. Flaps based on the rectus abdominis muscle have several drawbacks. Regional perforator flaps may be a suitable alternative. We present our experience of using the gluteal fold flap (GFF) for reconstructing perineal and pelvic defects.

methodsWe used a retrospective chart review and follow-up examinations focusing on epidemiological, oncological (procedure and outcome), and therapy-related data. This included postoperative complications and their management, length of hospital stay, and time to heal.

resultsTwenty-two GFFs (unilateral n = 8; bilateral n = 7) were performed in 15 patients (nine women and six men; anal squamous cell carcinoma n = 8; rectal adenocarcinoma n = 7; mean age 65.5 + 8.2 years) with a mean follow-up time of 1 year. Of the cases, 73.3% were a recurrent disease. Microscopic tumor resection was achieved in all but one case (93.3%). Seven cases had no complications (46.7%). Surgical complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo system (grades I n = 2; II n = 2; IIIb n = 4). These were mainly wound healing disorders that did not affect mobilization or discharge. The time to discharge was 22 + 9.9 days. The oncological outcomes were as follows: 53.3% of the patients had no evidence of disease, 20% had metastatic disease, 20% had local recurrent disease, and one patient (6.7%) died of other causes.

conclusionsThe GFF is a robust, reliable flap suitable for perineal and pelvic reconstruction. It can be raised quickly and easily, has an acceptable complication rate and donor site morbidity, and does not affect the abdominal wall.

Indexed as

Adipose TissueAgedAged, 80 and overButtocksFasciaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPerforator FlapPerineumPlastic Surgery ProceduresPostoperative CareSkinAbdominoperineal rectum excisionGluteal fold flapPelvic reconstructionPerforator flapPerineal reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID30610436
OpenAlexW2907024590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.