ArticleJPRAS open2020
Primary and secondary perforator-based flap-in-flap reconstructions of postexcisional head and neck soft tissue defects.
Article in JPRAS open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPerforator-based flap-in-flap (PBFIF) refers to the construct of one flap within another based on a perforator. Primary flap-in-flap is the simultaneous construct of two flaps, one within the other. It is particularly useful in cases where despite perfect planning, the flap does not fit congruently into recesses of the defect. It facilitates tension-free flap inset without the need for secondary movement from adjacent areas. Secondary flap-in-flap is the construction of a flap within a previously transferred settled flap. It is particularly useful in cases of wound dehiscence and partial necrosis, which results in a defect-warranting flap cover, when other flap options are either not feasible or other options have been exhausted.
aimTo assess the outcome and define the biogeometry of primary and secondary PBFIFs, which were used in postexcisional head and neck soft tissue defects. MATERIALS AND
methodsEight patients who underwent flap-in-flap head and neck reconstruction from January 2014 to January 2016 (four cases of primary PBFIF with nasolabial flaps, and four cases of secondary PBFIF with pectoralis major myocutaneous flaps) were retrospectively studied. All were nonsmokers with no associated comorbidities. At the end of the follow-up period, two independent observers and the patient assessed the outcome based on the Institutional Reconstruction Assessment Score (IRAS).
resultsAll flaps settled well with a mean follow-up of 16.75 months. All flaps were used for the reconstruction of postexcisional defects only. None of the patients had any loco regional recurrences. The mean IRAS obtained in 8 patients was 3.5 (primary PBFIF=3.87 and secondary PBFIF= 3.12). None of the flaps resulted in the late distortion of adjacent anatomical landmarks by hypertrophy or contracture of scars.
conclusionFlap-in-flap reconstruction (whether primary or secondary) is a useful technique to cover defects where reconstruction without anatomical distortion is required (e.g., face). It is a useful option for a tension-free flap inset. Flap-in-flap reconstruction is a relatively easy adjunct in the salvage reconstructive armamentarium of plastic surgeons.
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.