Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34491852›Full record

SynthesisOtolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery2022

Management of Flap Failure After Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Amit Walia, Jake J Lee, Ryan S Jackson, Angela C Hardi, Craig A Bollig, Evan M Graboyes, Joseph Zenga, Sidharth V Puram, Patrik Pipkorn

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Amit WaliaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1061-0561
Jake J LeeDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Ryan S JacksonDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Angela C HardiBernard Becker Medical Library, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Craig A BolligDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Evan M GraboyesDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Joseph ZengaDepartment of Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Sidharth V PuramDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Patrik PipkornDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Washington University in St. Louis · USMedical College of Wisconsin · USMedical University of South Carolina · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

DEVELOPMENT OF CLINICIAN/RESEARCHERS IN ACADEMIC ENTT32DC000022 · NIDCD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI PICCIRILLO, JAY F. · 1989 to 2022
$5.6M
NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC000022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo systematically review management of flap loss in head and neck construction with free tissue transfer as compared with locoregional flap or conservative management. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to October 2019. REVIEW

methodsCandidate articles were independently reviewed by 2 authors. Articles were considered eligible if they included adequate reporting of flap management after flap loss and outcomes for survival of reconstruction, length of hospitalization, and perioperative complications.

resultsA total of 429 patients had acute flap failure in the perioperative period. The overall success with a secondary free flap was 93% (95% CI, 0.89-0.97; n = 26 studies,

conclusionSalvage reconstruction with free tissue transfer has a high success rate. Second free flaps following flap failure had a similar length of hospitalization and lower overall complication rate than locoregional reconstruction or conservative management. A second free tissue transfer, when feasible, is likely a more reliable and effective procedure for salvage reconstruction.

Indexed as

Free Tissue FlapsHead and Neck NeoplasmsPlastic Surgery ProceduresHeadHumansNeckPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective Studiesfree flap failurefree flap salvagefree tissue transferfree tissue transfer failurehead and neck reconstructionhead and neck reconstructive surgerymanagement of failed free flapmanagement of failed free tissue transfermicrovascular free flap

Identifiers

PMID34491852
PMCPMC8972962
OpenAlexW3197269968

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.