ArticleClinical oral investigations2020
Use of amniotic membrane for radial forearm free flap donor site coverage: clinical, functional and cosmetic outcomes.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Amniotic Membrane Transplantation: Clinical Applications in Enhancing Wound Healing and Tissue Regeneration.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025Review
- Surgical repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture with and without human amniotic membrane augmentation: a retrospective comparative study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical, functional and aesthetic outcomes for radial forearm free flap (RFFF) donor sites covered with amniotic membrane (AM). MATERIAL AND
methodsThe healing process of patients with RFFF donor sites covered with AM was prospectively followed for 1 year. Additionally at the 12-month evaluation, objective scoring systems were used to assess the aesthetic (Vancouver scar scale, VSS: range 1-13) and functional outcome (skin sensibility, hand/wrist functionality [goniometer], grip strength [score 1 = excellent, 5 = poor]). By using a subjective rating system (score 1 = excellent, 5 = poor), the patient-reported aesthetic and functionality outcome was correlated with objective data analysis.
resultsTwenty-one out of 23 patients were followed for 12 months (dropout: 2 patients at 3 months). In 17/23 (73.9%) patients RFFF defect covered with AM showed an uneventful healing period (< 3 months). Prolonged healing periods (> 3 months < 6) for 6 patients (26.1%) were attributed to wound infections (4×), seroma (1×) and inflammation (1×). At the 1-year evaluation, there was a significant (p < 0.01) correlation between subjective (2.0 ± 0.71) and objective aesthetic scores (VVS 3.74 ± 2.18), and a successful grip strength (score 1.67 ± 0.86); however, thumb hyposensibility in 76.2% was seen. A high body mass index (BMI) was in conjunction with a negative (p = 0.012) and the use of antihypertensive medications provided positive effects (p = 0.041) on the aesthetic outcome.
conclusionRFFF donor site defects covered using AM show excellent clinical, aesthetic and functional outcome representing patient comorbidities (BMI, antihypertensive drugs) might affect the aesthetic outcome. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In relation to the excellent outcomes found, the use of AM offers an alternative treatment procedure for RFFF defect covering.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31729578What 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.