ReviewDer Orthopade2020
[Soft tissue defects following tumor resection in the limbs and trunk : Plastic reconstructive soft tissue and revision concepts].
Review in Der Orthopade, 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.
- Multistep reconstruction of a post-traumatic defect in the lower limb with AV loop and free myocutaneous latissimus dorsi flap combined with a perforator monitor skin island after loss of ALT flap.GMS Interdisciplinary plastic and reconstructive surgery DGPW · 2021Article
- Current Surgical Therapy of Locally Advanced cSCC: From Patient Selection to Microsurgical Tissue Transplant. Review.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTissue defects of the trunk and limbs after oncologic surgery and radiation require plastic reconstructive tissue coverage. Depending on the location and size of the wound as well as the interdisciplinary treatment concept, different reconstructive procedures are performed. These range from skin transplantation to local and pedicle flaps, to perforator flaps and free microsurgical tissue transfer.
methodsThe modern "reconstructive ladder" can be regarded as an orientation for the sequence of the reconstructive options. Considering the patient's wishes and risk profile, an individual reconstructive concept must be devised. The best functional and simultaneously safest procedure with the smallest secondary defect is to be chosen. Wound preconditioning via vacuum-assisted closure can precede definitive tissue coverage in order to optimize local conditions.
conclusionSafe tissue coverage can be achieved even in advanced stages of oncologic disease and after extensive surgery by performing wound preconditioning and arteriovenous loop grafting to induce safe de novo recipient vessels for two-stage free tissue transfer. The choice between maximum plastic reconstructive options for a curative approach or limited palliative surgery is to be harmonized and balanced with therapeutic goals and the patient's biologic resources. Preservation and restoration of quality of life and functionality is the plastic surgeon's dictum.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31974632What 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.