ReviewJournal of oncology2019
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Microsurgical Safety and Efficacy of Profunda Artery Perforator Flap in Breast Reconstruction.
Review in Journal of oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical Outcomes Following Profunda Artery Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- The profunda artery perforator flap in autologous breast reconstruction: a scientific review.Gland surgery · 2025Review
- Breast Reconstruction With Profunda-artery Perforator Flap Combined With Fat Grafting After Mastectomy of Recurrent Phyllodes Tumor.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Assessing Donor Site Morbidity and Impact on Quality of Life in Free Flap Microsurgery: An Overview.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Updates on Breast Reconstruction: Surgical Techniques, Challenges, and Future Directions.World journal of oncology · 2024Review
- Perforator versus Non-Perforator Flap-Based Vulvoperineal Reconstruction-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2024Review
- The Preferred Design of the Profunda Artery Perforator Flap for Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Transverse or Diagonal?Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Minimal Scar Autologous Breast Reconstruction with Skin-sparing Mastectomy.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Alternative donor sites in autologous breast reconstruction: a clinical practice review of the PAP flap.Gland surgery · 2023Review
- Modern Approaches to Alternative Flap-Based Breast Reconstruction: Profunda Artery Perforator Flap.Clinics in plastic surgery · 2023Review
- Long-Term Outcome Analysis and Technical Refinements after Autologous Breast Reconstruction with PAP Flap: What We Have Learnt.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Review
- Donor-Site Morbidity and Quality of Life after Autologous Breast Reconstruction with PAP versus TMG Flap.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap was first applied in breast reconstruction in 2010 by Robert J. Allen. It provided an alternative for autologous breast reconstruction in addition to traditional donor sites. Currently, literature reporting its microsurgical safety and efficacy is relatively sparse and heterogeneous
methodsMultiple databases were systematically searched by two independent reviewers. The result was statistically analyzed with Meta command of R GUI 3.5.1. The proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using random-effect model.
resultsThere were 12 studies including 516 PAP flaps meeting the inclusion criteria. The pooled surgical success rate was 99% (95% CI: 97%-100%) and overall rate of complications was 23% (95% CI: 18%-27%). The most common individual complication was wound dehiscence with incidence of 6% (95% CI: 4%-9%). The seroma rate was 2% (95%CI: 0%-6%). The hematoma rate was 1% (95% CI: 0%-2%). The partial necrosis rate was 2% (95% CI: 0%-5%). The rate of total flap loss was 1% (95% CI: 0%-3%).
conclusionTo date, this study is the first meta-analysis of microsurgical efficacy and safety evaluation of the PAP flap in breast reconstruction. This present work confirmed that the PAP flap is safe and reliable in breast reconstruction with high success rate, but a relatively low complication rate. Moreover, it might be more than an alternative to the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap (DIEP) in microsurgical breast reconstruction in selected patients.
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.