Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33564595›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2021

Systematic Review of Tissue Expansion: Utilization in Non-breast Applications.

Hannah C Langdell, Mahsa Taskindoust, Heather A Levites, Catalin Mateas, Amanda R Sergesketter, Samantha J Kaplan, Jeffrey R Marcus, Detlev Erdmann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hannah C LangdellDivision of Plastic, Reconstructive, Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
Mahsa TaskindoustDivision of Plastic, Reconstructive, Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
Heather A LevitesDivision of Plastic, Reconstructive, Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
Catalin MateasDivision of Plastic, Reconstructive, Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
Amanda R SergesketterDivision of Plastic, Reconstructive, Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
Samantha J KaplanDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
Jeffrey R MarcusDivision of Plastic, Reconstructive, Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
Detlev ErdmannDivision of Plastic, Reconstructive, Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
Duke University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTissue expansion is a versatile reconstructive technique providing well-vascularized local tissue. The current literature focuses largely on tissue expansion for breast reconstruction and in the context of burn and pediatric skin/soft tissue replacement; however, less traditional applications are also prevalent. The aim of this study was to systematically review the utilization of tissue expansion in such less well-characterized circumstances.

methodsThe authors conducted a systematic review of all publications describing non-breast applications of tissue expansion. Variables regarding expander specifications, expansion process, and complications were collected and further analyzed.

resultsA total of 565 publications were identified. Of these, 166 publications described tissue expansion for "less traditional" indications, which fell into 5 categories: ear reconstruction, cranioplasty, abdominal wall reconstruction, orthopedic procedures, and genital (penile/scrotal and vaginal/vulva) reconstruction. While lower extremity expansion is known to have high complication rates, tissue expander failure, infection, and exposure rates were in fact highest for penile/scrotal (failure: 18.5%; infection: 15.5%; exposure: 12.5%) and vaginal/vulva (failure: 20.6%; infection: 10.3%; exposure: 6.9%) reconstruction.

conclusionsTissue expansion enables index operations by providing additional skin before definitive reconstruction. Tissue expanders are a valuable option along the reconstructive ladder because they obviate the need for free tissue transfer. Although tissue expansion comes with inherent risk, aggregate outcome failures of the final reconstruction are similar to published rates of complications without pre-expansion. Thus, although tissue expansion requires a staged approach, it remains a valuable option in facilitating a variety of reconstructive procedures.

Identifiers

PMID33564595
PMCPMC7862073
OpenAlexW3123266643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.