ArticleArchives of plastic surgery2020
Multifactorial analysis of the surgical outcomes of giant congenital melanocytic nevi: Single versus serial tissue expansion.
Article in Archives of plastic surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Serial Skin Grafing Technique for Management of a Facial Giant Congenital Melanocytic Nevus: Case Report with a Literature Review.Indian journal of plastic surgery : official publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of India · 2025Article
- Serial Tissue Expansion and Skin Grafts in the Management of a Giant Congenital Nevus of the Face: Review of Literature and Case Report.Archives of plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Serial tissue expansion and excision for reconstruction of giant dorsal congenital melanocytic nevus: A case report.SAGE open medical case reports · 2024Article
- Review
- Neonatal Curettage of Large to Giant Congenital Melanocytic Nevi Under Local Anesthetic: A Case Series With Long-Term Follow Up.Journal of cutaneous medicine and surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiant congenital melanocytic nevus (GCMN) is a rare disease, for which complete surgical resection is recommended. However, the size of the lesions presents problems for the management of the condition. The most popular approach is to use a tissue expander; however, single-stage expansion in reconstructive surgery for GCMN cannot always address the entire defect. Few reports have compared tissue expansion techniques. The present study compared single and serial expansion to analyze the risk factors for complications and the surgical outcomes of the two techniques.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of patients who underwent tissue expander reconstruction between March 2011 and July 2019. Serial expansion was indicated in cases of anatomically obvious defects after the first expansion, limited skin expansion with two more expander insertions, or capsular contracture after removal of the first expander.
resultsFifty-five patients (88 cases) were analyzed, of whom 31 underwent serial expansion. The number of expanders inserted was higher in the serial-expansion group (P<0.001). The back and lower extremities were the most common locations for single and serial expansion, respectively (P=0.043). Multivariate analysis showed that sex (odds ratio [OR], 0.257; P=0.015), expander size (OR, 1.016; P=0.015), and inflation volume (OR, 0.987; P=0.015) were risk factors for complications.
conclusionsSerial expansion is a good option for GCMN management. We demonstrated that large-sized expanders and large inflation volumes can lead to complications, and therefore require risk-reducing strategies. Nonetheless, serial expansion with proper management is appropriate for certain patients and can provide aesthetically satisfactory outcomes.
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.